Bombay High Court
Nandu Antaram Rajput vs State Of Maharashtra Thr Urban ... on 30 October, 2023
Author: G.S. Patel
Bench: G.S. Patel
911-ASWP-12450-2023.DOC
Shephali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12450 OF 2023
Nandu Antaram Rajput ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Urban ...Respondents
Development Dept & Ors
Mr Atul Damle, Senior Advocate, with Abhijit Kulkarni, i/b Sweta
Shah & Krushna Jaybhay, for the Petitioner.
Mr YD Patil, AGP, for Respondents Nos. 1, 4 and 5-State.
Mr AR Kapadnis, for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
CORAM G.S. Patel &
Kamal Khata, JJ.
Digitally DATED: 30th October 2023 signed by SHEPHALI PC:-
SHEPHALI SANJAY SANJAY MORMARE MORMARE Date:
2023.10.31 10:21:15 +0530
1. The matter is similar to a group of matters in which we have passed an order on 20th June 2022. The order starts at page 41. The relevant portion is at page 64. The order reads:
"1. The matter will have to be adjourned sine die since an SLP has been filed against the decision of this Court in Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors.1 By that decision, a Division Bench of this court inter alia distinguished the three-Judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co Ltd & Anr v State of Maharashtra & Ors.2 1 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2823 : (2019) 1 AIR Bom R 84. 2 (2014) 3 SCC 430.Page 1 of 3
30th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2023 03:31:04 ::: 911-ASWP-12450-2023.DOC
2. One or more Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the decision of the High Court in Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal. The Supreme Court has, we are informed, passed an order of status quo until further orders.
3. Consequently, since this matter is one of those covered by the SLPs, we adjourn this matter sine die with liberty to the parties to apply after the SLPs are disposed of."
2. In the present case also, the land in question has suffered a mutation in favour of the State Government. The Petitioner claims to own Gat No. 302/B/1 of Village Manerwadi Khanapur, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. This land originally belonged to one Babu Anaji Jadhav. Jadhav sold the land to one Ashok Kumar Suratwala on 24th April 1990. Ten years later, the Petitioner and his wife purchased the land from Suratwala. They were, the Petitioner says, cultivating this land. In 2006, they applied for conversion of the land to the non-agricultural use. The Tehsildar granted that permission on payment of 50% of the value of the land. The Petitioner says that this was paid. The Petitioner then claims that with no notice, the State Government deleted the name of the Petitioner and his wife from the land records and from the mutation entry No. 273 included the name of State Government's Forest Department. The Petitioner's and his wife's name were shifted to the "other rights"
column. Reference is made to Writ Petition filed in this Court and the Judgment and Order of this Court on 12th January 2016.
3. In the meantime, the Petitioner's wife passed away. She left a Will bequeathing her share in the land to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority Page 2 of 3 30th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2023 03:31:04 ::: 911-ASWP-12450-2023.DOC ("PMRDA") has issued a notice about unauthorised construction on the subject land. There is now a notice under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1966 ("MRTP Act"). The reason this is said to be unauthorised is because no permission has been allegedly obtained for a construction on what is supposedly forest land vesting in the State Government. But that is precisely the issue to be considered and which is pending before the Supreme Court.
4. This matter will be tagged along with the group of matters in which we made an order on 20th June 2022. The same order will apply in the present case as well. The matter will be adjourned sine die pending the decision of the Supreme Court in Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal. There is an order of status quo by the Supreme Court. Such an order will have to be passed in the present case also. This, however, is subject to the outcome of the SLP or any interim order vacating status quo. If the Supreme Court vacates the status quo that it has granted, then our order today of status quo will also automatically stand vacated.
5. The continuance of the status quo order gives the Petitioner no equities and is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the State Government.
(Kamal Khata, J) (G. S. Patel, J) Page 3 of 3 30th October 2023 ::: Uploaded on - 31/10/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 01/11/2023 03:31:04 :::