Bombay High Court
Late. Dhondu Gahina Pokharkar Thr. Lhr ... vs The Collector Of Pune And Ors on 21 December, 2022
Author: M.M. Sathaye
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye
ppn 1 8.wp-14923.22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.14923 OF 2022
Late Dhondu Gahina Pokharkar
through Legal heir
Ramdas Yashvant Pokharkar .. Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy collector,
Rehabilitation, Pune & Ors. .. Respondents
---
Mr.Sanjeev Sawant a/w Mr.Digvijay Palande and Mr.Abhishek
Deshmukh for the petitioner.
Mr.M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State.
---
CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
DATE : 21st December 2022 P.C.:-
. By this petition, the petitioner seeks writ of mandamus against the respondent nos.2 and 3 to forthwith allot the land described in prayer clause (a) of the petition under the provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 and for other reliefs.
2. By an order dated 5th November 2019 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.11009 of 2019 filed by Late Dhondu Gahina Pokharkar through Legal heir Ramdas Yashvant Pokharkar Vs. the Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune & Ors. and other companion matters, this Court had directed the Deputy Collector to ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2022 17:55:36 ::: ppn 2 8.wp-14923.22.doc examine the cases of the petitioners and to ascertain if they are project affected persons as claimed by them after granting personal hearing. Though the Deputy Collector was directed to pass appropriate orders within six months from the date of appearance of the petitioners, the Deputy Collector could not pass such order. The petitioner has thereafter filed contempt petition bearing (St.)No.96987 of 2020 against the contemnors.
3. This Court after considering the unconditional apology tendered by the respondent no.1 directed the respondents to comply with the order dated 5th November 2019 on or before 31st March 2021.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that though these orders came to be passed issuing various directions, the respondents did not comply with any of those orders. The petitioner was thus required to file a second contempt petition.
5. By an order dated 13th January 2022, this Court directed the office to issue a show cause notice against the respondent nos.1 and 2 under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the said contempt petition, Mr.Uttam Rajaram Patil, Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Dist. Pune filed an affidavit and stated that the land bearing Gat No.617 admeasuring 80 Aar of Village Darekarwadi, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune had been allotted to the project affected persons and also allotted to the petitioner. He further states that there is an encroachment on the said land made by the original land owners. The office of the Tahsildar had already issued a notice dated 25 th April 2022 to the encroachers and asked them to remove illegal encroachment ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2022 17:55:36 ::: ppn 3 8.wp-14923.22.doc immediately at their own costs.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that after these orders were passed by this Court in the proceedings filed by the petitioner, the respondents did not comply with the said orders thereby allotting the plots free from encumbrances. The petitioner has thus filed this writ petition.
7. A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Dist. Pune indicates that the plot allotted to the petitioner is encroached.
8. In our prima facie view, the respondents have not complied with the orders passed by this Court and have committed contempt of the orders passed by this Court. Be that as it may, the petitioner has indicated in the prayer clause (a) of this writ petition as to which plots can be made available to the petitioner at least at this stage.
9. Learned AGP seeks time to take instructions and to file an affidavit which shall indicate as to whether the plots described in prayer clause (a) are available or not, and if available, as to when the same can be allotted to the petitioner. If the plots mentioned in prayer clause (a) are not available and cannot be allotted to the petitioner, the respondent nos.2 and 3 to allot suitable land in compliance with the orders already passed by this Court within six weeks from today without fail. Affidavit- in-reply shall be filed within three weeks from today.
10. It is made clear that if the suitable land is not allotted in ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2022 17:55:36 ::: ppn 4 8.wp-14923.22.doc compliance with the directions issued by this Court earlier and today, this Court would initiate proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the concerned officers of the respondents for committing contempt of the orders passed by this Court earlier and this order.
11. Place the matter on board on 13th February 2023. It is made clear that if the plots identified by the petitioner described in prayer (a) are available, such plots should not be allotted to any other parties except the petitioner till next date.
M.M. SATHAYE, J. R.D. DHANUKA, J.
::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 22/12/2022 17:55:36 :::