Bombay High Court
Bhagwan Namdeo Mangate And Others vs The District Collector And Others on 10 January, 2022
Bench: A.S. Gadkari, S. G. Mehare
wp9406.21
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
57 WRIT PETITION NO.9406 OF 2021
BHAGWAN NAMDEO MANGATE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Mr. Mayur Subhedar, Advocate holding for Mr. C.V.
Dharurkar, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr. S.R. Yadav-Lonikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3
CORAM : A.S. GADKARI
AND
S. G. MEHARE, JJ.
DATE : 10th January, 2022
P.C.
1. Petitioners have filed present petition for directions to
respondent nos.1 and 3 to execute the judgment and order
dated 10.6.2019 passed by respondent no.3 in a
proceedings under Section 5 (2) of Mamlatdar's Courts Act,
1906, initiated by them. By the said judgment and order,
the application of the petitioners was allowed. A revision
preferred under Section 23 (3) of Mamlatdar's Courts Act by
the aggrieved persons has been turned down by the
revisional authority, i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (E.G.S.),
Aurangabad. A second revision preferred by the aggrieved
persons has also been turned down by the Additional
wp9406.21
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by its judgment and
Order dated 26.3.2021. It is thus clear that the order passed
under Section 5 (2) of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act dated
10.6.2019 has, as of today, attained finality.
2. Perusal of order dated 10.6.2019 and in particular
clause no.2 of operative part thereof clearly reveals that,
respondent no.3 has directed the Circle Officer and Talathi of
said village to clear the road as mentioned therein. Section
21 of Mamlatdar's Courts Act prescribes for execution of an
order passed by the Mamlatdar under the said Act. It
appears from record that, the respondents did not give
effect to the well reasoned order passed by respondent no.3
dated 10.6.2019 and therefore, petitioner no.1 submitted a
representation to respondent no.1, i.e. District Collector,
Aurangabad. It further appears from record that, the
Collector and District Magistrate, Aurangabad by its
communication dated 2.7.2021 had directed all the
concerned to remove the encroachment carried out by the
persons mentioned in the Order passed by respondent no.3.
Despite the said fact, till date the order dated 10.6.2019 has
not been given effect of.
3. Mr Sanjay Warkad, Tahsildar, Kannad, District
Aurangabad has filed affidavit-in-reply dated 21.10.2021 and
wp9406.21
has given neumarous reasons therein for not honouring the
order passed by his predecessor. It is thus clear from the
record that, the respondents are unable to execute orders
passed by them and are raising innumerable specious pleas
for not giving effect to the order dated 10.6.2019. That
though the Collector, Aurangabad has expressed concern
over the execution of order dated 10.6.2019, his subordinate
authorities have bent upon to nullify the effect of the said
Order. In such eventuality, according to us, two inferences
can be drawn namely (i) the respondents are unable to
execute orders passed by themselves and (ii) respondent
nos.2 and 3 are not following the directions issued by
respondent no.1, i.e. Collector, Aurangabad.
If respondent nos.2 and 3 are not following the lawful
orders passed by respondent no.1, then it is a matter of
concern for respondent no.1 which cannot not be
countenanced.
4. In view thereof, we direct respondent no.1 to look into
the matter personally and take appropriate remedial
measures for execution of the order dated 10.6.2019 (page
no.35) passed by respondent no.3. This be done within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of present
order.
wp9406.21
Respondent no.1 is directed to submit its report in that
behalf to this Court within a period of three weeks from the
date of receipt of present Order.
5. Stand over to 9.2.2022.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
amj
