Shripati J. Kadam & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra

Mr. S.P. Thorat for the Petitioners. Mr. N.D. Deshpande, AGP., for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar i/by Mr. G.S. Godbole for R. No. 4 in W.P. No.7609/07. Mr. S.N. Chandrachood for R. No. 5 in W.P.No.7609/07. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 5TH MAY, 2009. P.C. 2 . The learned AGP., after seeking instructions from the Collector, Pune m akes a state me nt that the subsequent group consisting of 71 persons also fall in the category of project affected persons who are being rehabilitated on the subject land. This state ment is accepted.

#2. The petitioner has ap proached this court impugning the notices issued by the S.D.O. Dated 20.12.2006 Exhibit “F” to the petition being contrary to the order passed by this court which are a n nexed to the petition at Exhibits “C” and “D”. The m ain conte ntion of the learned cou nsel for the petitioner is that by this notice the responde nt proposes to evict the m from the plot of land allotted to the m as project affected persons in order to acco m m odate others.

#3. We find that the notice issued to the petitioners which is challenged before the Court is not for the p ur pose of dispossessing the m from the plot of land which has been allotted to the m as project affected persons but to examine as to whether they have encroached on the land beyond their entitleme nt and, therefore, we do not find any reason why the petitioner should not participate in the proceedings p ursuant to the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune Sub-Division as it clearly specifies that they are called u po n to re move the encroach me nts so as to carve out plots as per the order passed by the High court in the m atter being 3 survey no. 25 /29, 160 and 161 part which is acquired for the p ur pose of resettleme nt of project affected persons from village Shivane, Tal. Haveli, District Pune. Therefore, it can not be said that the notice is bad in law. In so far as the notices issued in the na me of deceased persons are concerned, it will be proper on the part of the legal heirs of the deceased to respond to the notice a nd bring it to the notice of the authorities that they are the legal heirs. On such application being m a de, the responde nt S.D.O., would hear the legal heirs of the deceased persons by giving the m a fair opportu nity in the m atter and then decide the case in accorda nce with law. Needless to say that all the petitioners will cooperate with the revenue authorities in respect of their entitleme nt to allot me nt of plot of land.

#4. We m ake it clear that the revenue authorities would not allot the plot of land acquired for the p ur pose of rehabilitating projected affected persons to a ny other persons who do not fall in the said category.

#6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Mr. Thorat sub mits that he is u nable to u n dersta nd as to why this Court is not reading the affidavit in reply in another writ petition which has been already disposed of. This is beyond the scope of the petition and 4 that is why this Court does not think it proper to go through m atters which are not relevant for the decision of the petition. If Mr. Thorat is not satisfied with our order he has a re medy elsewhere. But if he p ursues the m atter in this fashion this Court would be constrained to issue notice to him.

#7. Writ Petition No. 7609 of 2007 be listed after Sum mer Vacation for disposal at the stage of ad mission. S.O. To 22.6.2009. (J.N. Patel, J.) Sd/- Sd/- (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)