Bombay High Court
Vilas Nanasaheb Thombre vs The Sub Divisional Officer Aurangabad ... on 25 January, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
2024:BHC-AUG:1995-DB
(1) 1030 wp 11377.18
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1030 WRIT PETITION NO. 11377 OF 2018
RAMRAO VITHOBA KALE
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR JALNA AND ANOTHER
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 14237 OF 2018
VILAS NANASAHEB THOMBRE
VERSUS
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 14204 OF 2018
SITARAM BALWANTA @ BALIRAM KUBER AND ORS
VERSUS
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AND ANOTHER
AND
WRIT PETITION NO. 14233 OF 2018
BABASAHEB KESHAVRAO THOMBRE
VERSUS
THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : S/Shri Amol Gawali & Yeramwar Sushant C.
AGP for Respondents/State : S/Shri S.K. Tambe & R.S. Wani
Advocate for R/2 in WP/11377/2018: Mr. Girish Rane
Advocate for R/2 : Mr. S.S. Joshi
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE : 25th January, 2024
(2) 1030 wp 11377.18
P.C. :-
1. The three matters which were not on board, were taken on the
production board, by consent of the parties.
2. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Single
Judge Bench of this Court had passed an order on 21.01.2019 in a group of
Writ Petitions (Writ Petition No.14315/2018 and connected matters), Power
Grid Corporation of India Limited V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors., thereby
concluding that the remedy to the aggrieved persons who have suffered loss /
damage caused on account of laying of the high tension distribution line over
their agricultural fields, is of approaching the learned Principal District Judge.
Reliance was placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the said order.
3. The learned advocate representing the Corporation relies upon the
following orders of this Court:
i) Order dated 18.02.2016 in Writ Petition No.12052/2015 (Ramesh Nivrutti
Shinde V/s. Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr.)
ii) Order dated 25.07.2017 in Writ Petition No.4356/2016 (Ranjeet Padmakar
Muley V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
iii) Order dated 30.01.2019 in Writ Petition No.536/2018 (Shridhar Deorao
Jadhav V/s. The Regional Manager Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors.)
(3) 1030 wp 11377.18
iv) Order dated 08.03.2021 in Writ Petition No.12953/2019 (Sarang S/o Avinash
Joshi V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
v) Order dated 02.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.4956/2021 (Gorakh Bhaurao
Pawar V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
vi) Order dated 06.10.2022 in Writ Petition No.12999/2019 (Balubai Sonaji Kuber
V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.)
4. In view of the above, the learned advocate for the Petitioners prays
for liberty to withdraw these petitions, since some of the Petitioners have
already preferred Regular Civil Suit Nos.1 and 4/2019 and the remaining
Petitioners are also desirous of filing such suits.
5. Shri Joshi the learned advocate along with Shri Rane, appearing
on behalf of the Respondents, submits that the Petitioners have actually played
a dubious role. They initially preferred petitions before this Court. When they
did not succeed in getting favourable orders, they approached the Civil Court.
When the Civil Court raised an objection as regards the pendency of these
petitions, they are now trying to seek liberty to withdraw these petitions. This
amounts to forum shopping and each of the Petitioners should be saddled with
costs of at least Rs.50,000/-.
6. The learned advocate for the Petitioners submits that these
Petitioners are marginal farmers. They were unable to even pay the Court fees
(4) 1030 wp 11377.18
before the Civil Court in the civil suits. They are unable to pay costs
considering their agricultural background and meager earnings from
agricultural activities. He, therefore, prays that the Petitioners be pardoned
and costs may not be imposed.
7. In view of the above submissions, we are not imposing costs.
8. All these petitions are disposed off as withdrawn on instructions.
All the contentions of the litigating parties are kept open to be considered by
the Civil Court.
[Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
mub
