Bandhkam Kamgar va Magasvargiya Sahakari v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. In view of the above, Mr. Sabban informed the Court that this would require a challenge even to the relaxation granted to Pandhe Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and instead of extensively amending the Petition liberty be given to withdraw the Petition to file a fresh…
Judgment
Dr. Ramdas Sabban, for the Petitioner. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. with Ms. K. N. Solunke, AGP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni with Mr. Sarthank Diwan, for Respondent No. 4. CORAM: DATED: K. R. SHRIRAM & NEELA GOKHALE, JJ. 5th October 2023 PC:-
The Petition primarily is for a writ of Mandamus to direct Respondent Government to forfeit/resume the Government Lease hold and/or Occupant Class II land at Solapur for alleged violation of terms and conditions of land allotment/land lease (Kabulayat) by the original Allottee, Respondent No.3. The alleged breach is of transferring the land by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No. 4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the State through one Kumar Ashirwad, Collector, Solapur affirmed on 6th September 2023, it appears there has been non-compliance with the conditions of leasehold/kabulayat, but the conditions were relaxed based on an application made sometime in 2001 by one Pandhe Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Mr. Kulkarni Gaikwad RD 2/3 24-aswp-9621-2022.doc states that Respondent No.4 is Director of Pandhe Constructions Pvt. Ltd. In the affidavit, it is also stated that an amount of Rs.4,10,06,150/- has been paid by Pandhe Constructions Pvt. Ltd. to regularize. This amount has been paid on or about 15 th March 2022 and an order dated 23rd May 2022 about relaxation of condition mentioned in kabulayat have also been passed.
In view of the above, Mr. Sabban informed the Court that this would require a challenge even to the relaxation granted to Pandhe Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and instead of extensively amending the Petition liberty be given to withdraw the Petition to file a fresh Petition challenging the relaxation as well.
At this stage, Mr. Patel submitted that in view of the averments contained in the affidavit in reply nothing will survive in the Petition because the basis for the relief sought in the Petition is a letter dated 5th April 2021 and another dated 21st November 2021 addressed by Petitioner to Collector. Mr. Kulkarni questions the locus of Petitioner.
We are not going into those aspects since Mr. Sabban has sought leave of the Court to withdraw the Petition with liberty to file a fresh Petition.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as prayed for. Gaikwad RD 3/3 24-aswp-9621-2022.doc
All rights and contentions of the parties including to question the locus of Petitioner is kept open. (NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (K. R. SHRIRAM, J.) Gaikwad RD
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.