Bombay High Court
Barkya Gopal Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 10 January, 2025
Author: M. S. Sonak
Bench: M.S. Sonak
2025:BHC-AS:1553-DB 901.WP.194-2005(F).DOCX
Amol
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2005
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1149 OF 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2005
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 31396 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 194 OF 2005
Barkya Gopal Patil & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors ...Respondent
AMOL ______________________________________________________
PREMNATH
JADHAV
Mr L. S. Gaikwad, for the Petitioners/Applicants.
Digitally signed by
AMOL PREMNATH
JADHAV
Date: 2025.01.14
18:06:43 +0530 Ms S. D. Vyas, Addl.G.P., a/w Mr A. R. Deolekar, AGP, for the
Respondent-State.
Mr G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate, a/w Ms P. M. Bhansali, for
Respondent No.3-CIDCO.
______________________________________________________
CORAM
M.S. Sonak &
Jitendra Jain, JJ.
DATED: 10 January 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT:- Per M. S. Sonak, J.
1. Heard Mr Gaikwad for the Petitioners, Ms Shruti Vyas,
learned Additional Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1,
901.WP.194-2005(F).DOCX
2 and 4, and Mr Hegde learned Senior Advocate for
Respondent No.3 (CIDCO). The Petition stands abated against
Respondents Nos. 5 and 6.
2. The Petitioners claim to be tenants in respect of land
bearing Gat No.217, which measures 4 acres and 37.12
gunthas in the village of Airoli, District Thane. The landlords
were Mr Vishnu Sadashiv Modagi and Mr Gopal Chaya Patil.
3. The Petitioners have pleaded, and even the records
prima facie bear out that the Government acquired this land
for the purpose of land development and utilisation of lands
in the Trans Thana Creek area for industrial, commercial and
residential purposes. There is an award No.200 dated 17 May
1982 placed on record. This award refers to the Petitioners'
tenancy claim and ultimately takes cognisance of the dispute
between the Petitioners claiming to be tenants and the
landlord. The award, in its concluding paragraph, states that
until the Tahsildar decides the dispute between the landlord
and the tenant, the compensation amount will be kept in the
Revenue deposit.
4. Mr Gaikwad, learned counsel for the Petitioners, states
that the dispute before the tahsildar is still pending. However,
Ms Shruti Vyas, learned Additional Government Pleader, refers
to the affidavit filed by the tahsildar on 18 August 2005. From
the affidavit, she points out that this dispute was disposed of
after the Petitioners, who were given an opportunity to
appear, chose not to appear and were marked ex-parte.
5. We have perused the affidavit, and at this stage, we can
only say there is no clarity about whether the 1970
901.WP.194-2005(F).DOCX
proceeding referred to by the Tahsildar in paragraph 3 of the
affidavit relates to the acquired land. There is a reference to
some disputes regarding 13 gunthas of land. Still, there is no
clarity about the tenancy status regarding Gat No.217 Part 2,
which is the Petitioners claim measures 4 acres and 37.12
gunthas. At any event, at this stage, we do not wish to, and
perhaps we cannot finally pronounce on these aspects.
6. The Petitioners, in prayer clause (a) of the Petition, has
sought the following relief:-
"a) That this Hon'ble Court in its jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India may be pleased to direct
Respondent No.4 Tahsildar to hold inquiry under Section 32-
G of the B.T. & A.L. Act in respect of Gat No.217 admeasuring
4 acres and 37.12 Gunthas of village Airoli, Taluka and
District Thane and decide the relationship of Vishnu Sadashiv
Modagi and Gopal Chaya Patil."
7. Mr L. S. Gaikwad asserts that the matter is pending
before the Tahsildar regarding the acquired property
described in prayer clause (a) above and submits that
directions should be issued to the Tahsildar to dispose of the
proceedings.
8. Mr Hegde, the learned Senior Advocate for the third
Respondent (CIDCO), correctly points out that unless the
Petitioners are accepted as tenants in respect of the acquired
land and their names are reflected in the land acquisition
award, there is no question of allotting them 12.5% of the
land in accordance with the CIDCO schemes.
9. Accordingly, we direct the Tahsildar to inquire into the
Petitioners' claim of tenancy in respect of Gat No.217
admeasuring 4 acres and 37.12 gunthas of village Airoli,
901.WP.194-2005(F).DOCX
District Thane. The Tahsildar should also examine the records
and determine whether this claim is disposed of as it is now
claimed. All parties' contentions, including the contention that
this claim already stands decided, are kept open. This exercise
must be completed within six months from today. Necessary
notice must be given to the landlord or the landlord's legal
representatives. The Petitioners must take steps in this regard.
10. The Petitioners must appear before the Tahsildar on 27
January 2025 and produce an authenticated copy of this
order. The Petitioners must also produce copies of the
applications filed by the Petitioners along with the case
numbers and other details that may be available with the
Petitioners on the said date, along with an authenticated copy
of this order. This would facilitate the Tahsildar to inquire into
the matter and, if the Petitioner's tenancy claim is indeed
pending, to dispose of such claim within six months of the
production of the authenticated copy of this order.
11. If, ultimately, the Petitioners are adjudged as a tenants,
and the compensation in terms of the award dated 17 May
1982 is held payable either partly or wholly, it will be open to
the Petitioners to apply to the CIDCO for allotment of 12.5%
of the acquired land under the CIDCO scheme. If and when
such an application is made, the CIDCO should consider such
application in accordance with law and their schemes and
dispose of the same within three months of its receipt.
12. Typically, we would not have issued time bound
directions. However, this Petition was instituted in 2005, and
the award was even made on May 17, 1982. Since the matter
901.WP.194-2005(F).DOCX
must be taken to its logical conclusion one way or the other,
we are constrained to issue such time-bound directions.
13. The Rule in this Petition is disposed of in the above
term. There shall be no order for costs. All concerned to act on
an authenticated copy of this order.
14. The pending Interim Applications will not survive and
are disposed of.
(Jitendra Jain, J) (M.S. Sonak, J)
