High Court
Legal Reasoning
17-RA-31-2025.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD17 REVIEW APPLICATION (CIVIL) NO. 31 OF 2025 IN WP/1695/2025WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6886 OF 2025 IN RA/31/2025SUBODH BABURAO WAKEKARVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS.…Mr. Subodh Baburao Wakekar – Party-in-person Mr. A. B. Girase, Government Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. S. V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.6 .…CORAM: MANISH PITALE ANDY. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE:11.08.2025PER COURT :- 1.Heard the Review Applicant in person.2.By this Review Application, the Applicant seeks reviewof order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the Division Bench of thisCourt (Coram: Mangesh S. Patil and Prafulla S. Khubalkar, JJ.),whereby Writ Petition No.1695 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner wasdismissed. 1 of 6
Legal Reasoning
(( 2 ))17-RA-31-20253.According to the Applicant in person, the said order needsto be reviewed in the light of the contentions raised in the ReviewApplication, as also orally argued before this Court.4.The learned Government Pleader appearing for theRespondent State Authorities, as well as the learned counsel for theCity and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO), have opposedthis Review Application and they submit that there is no substance inthe same.5.The aforesaid Writ Petition No.1695 of 2025, was filed bythe Petitioner seeking quashing and setting aside of a communicationdated 28.12.2021, addressed to the father of the Petitioner, refusingthe prayer for regularization of encroachment on Gayran land. Afurther prayer was made for setting aside the allotment of the saidland in favour of the Respondent CIDCO, made as far back on05.01.1999 and a further prayer was made for setting aside anadvertisement issued on 26.08.2022 by CIDCO in the context of theland allotted to it.6.The Applicant, appearing in person, submits that theorder passed by this Court dismissing his Writ Petition did not 2 of 6 (( 3 ))17-RA-31-2025properly apply the ratio of the judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in Jagpal Singh and Others vs. The State of Punjab and Others,(2011) SCC 396. He contends that the Government Resolution dated12.07.2011, which reflects the policy of the State in light of the saidjudgment, could not have been applied to the case of the Petitioner, asthe prayer for regularization was made by the Petitioner and hispredecessor as far back as the year 1993. It is submitted that, in thiscontext, the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court as well as thesaid Government Resolution ought not to have been relied upon whiledismissing Writ Petition No. 1695 of 2025.7.It is further brought to our notice that by a recent orderdated 27.03.2025, the Collector had granted relief for regularisationto the similarly situated person, thereby showing the discriminatorymanner in which the Petitioner's case has been dealt with. 8.The learned Government Pleader, as well as the learnedcounsel appearing for CIDCO, submitted that the order dated05.02.2025 passed by this Court correctly takes into consideration thelaw laid down by the Supreme Court and the policy framed by theState in that context. The attention of this Court was further invitedto the order dated 06.10.2022, passed in Suo Motu Public Interest 3 of 6 (( 4 ))17-RA-31-2025Litigation No. 2 of 2022, concerning the issue of rigorousimplementation of the directions contained in the said judgment ofthe Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra).9.We have considered the rival submissions. In the orderdated 05.02.2025, this Court referred to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra), as well as the GovernmentResolution dated 12.07.2011, which reflects the stated policy of theRespondent State Authorities in light of the dictum laid down in thesaid judgment. After applying the same, this Court found no merit inWrit Petition No. 1695 of 2025, and it was accordingly dismissed.10.We are of the opinion that the Applicant in person has notbeen able to demonstrate any apparent error on the face of the recordof the order dated 05.02.2025 dismissing Writ Petition No.1695 of2025, particularly for the reason that all the relevant issuesconcerning the same were duly noted and pronounced upon by thisCourt in the said order.11.Apart from this, there is no substance in the contentionraised by the Applicant that, since the prayer or request forregularization of the encroachment was made by the predecessor of 4 of 6 (( 5 ))17-RA-31-2025the Petitioner in the year 1993, the judgment of the Supreme Court inthe case of Jagpal Singh (supra) and the Government Resolutiondated 12.07.2011 would not apply to the facts of the present case. Itis to be noted that the directions of the Supreme Court in the case ofJagpal Singh (supra) deal with the issue of rampant encroachmentson lands belonging to the Grampanchayat and meant for the commonuse of the villagers of the respective villages. In paragraph 22 of thesaid judgment and order, the Supreme Court kept open a very narrowwindow for regularization in exceptional cases, such as, where a leasehad been granted under some notification, where the occupantsbelonged to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where therewas already a school, dispensary, or other public utility on the land.12.The said narrow window is clearly not available in thefacts of the present case. The applicability of the said judgment andthe consequent Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 by theRespondent State, cannot be avoided by the Petitioner by claimingthat the prayer for regularization was made in 1993.13.In any case, the Petitioner does not dispute the fact thatthe predecessor was aware about allotment of the subject land to 5 of 6
Decision
(( 6 ))17-RA-31-2025CIDCO, as far back on 05.01.1999, while the initial Writ Petition wasfiled by the father of the Petitioner in the year 2021 and the aforesaidWrit Petition came to be filed in the year 2025. On that count also,we find no substance in the present Review Application.14.Insofar as the order passed on 27.03.2025 in the case of aparticular individual is concerned, the Applicant cannot claim parity,simply for the reason that the said order itself records that arecommendatory favorable report was submitted as far back as19.10.2011 in the facts of that case, which led to the issuance of thesaid order dated 27.03.2025. Therefore, no case of discrimination ismade out on behalf of the Applicant.15.There is no apparent error on the face of the recorddemonstrated by the Review Applicant. Accordingly, the ReviewApplication is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also standdisposed of. [ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ]SMS 6 of 6