Bombay High Court
Ramesh Khushal Kolhe vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 1 March, 2024
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*1* nob wp13231o23 SPK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.13231 OF 2023
RAMESH KHUSHAL KOLHE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondents 1 and 2.
Shri M.V. Navandar, Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
R.M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 01st March, 2024
Per Court :-
1. Not on the Board. Mentioned.
2. This is a motion for speaking to the minutes of the
order dated 23.02.2024.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that
since common orders were passed, he had also agreed for a
common order. However, one sentence "There are certain
internal disputes between the Petitioner and his relatives." is not
applicable to his case. So also, in the appearance clause, the
appearance of the learned Advocate Shri Navandar needs to be
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*2* nob wp13231o23 SPK
mentioned on behalf of Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
4. In view of the above, this motion is allowed. The
appearance clause be corrected accordingly. The above sentence
be deleted from paragraph 2 of the order dated 23.02.2024. The
said paragraph would now read as under:-
"The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body/ Municipal
Corporation, Jalgaon, submits that the Corporation had offered
TDR to the Petitioner, which was not accepted."
5. Corrected order be uploaded.
kps ( R.M. JOSHI, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*3* nob wp13231o23 SPK
(This order stands corrected and uploaded in view of the order dated 01.03.2024 passed on
the motion for speaking to the minutes of the order.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Ramesh Khushal Kolhe ....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra & Others .....Respondents
.....
Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. M.V. Navandar, Advocate for Respondents 3 and 4.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND
R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective
parties.
2. The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body/
Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon, submits that the Corporation
had offered TDR to the Petitioner, which was not accepted.
3. The issue raised by the Corporation is no longer
res integra in the light of the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers Vs. the State
This Order is Speaking to Minutes order of order dated //
*4* nob wp13231o23 SPK
of Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 4 Mh.L.J. 739 : (2022)
DGLS (Bom.) 2061, keeping in view the law laid down in
Girnar Traders Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR
(2007) SC 3180 : (2007) 7 SCC 555. As such, offering
TDR is not considered to be a step towards acquisition of the
land which is under reservation.
4. In view of the above, this Writ Petition is
allowed. The Corporation shall forward the proposal to
Respondent No. 1 for releasing the land from reservation,
within 30 days from today. Needless to state, Respondent
No. 1 shall thereafter issue the necessary Notification within
a period of 90 days.
( R. M. JOSHI) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE)
JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
