Bombay High Court
Shri. Shrinidhi Purushottam Kodurkar ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 October, 2022
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Nitin Jamdar, Sharmila U. Deshmukh
rsk 1 29-WP-11691-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11691 OF 2022
Shrinidhi Purushottam Kodurkar and Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
-------
Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Mr. Rushikesh C. Barge for the Petitioners.
Mr. V. S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Advocate for the Respondent-State.
-------
CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR &
SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATED : 11 OCTOBER 2022.
P. C. :
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner's land, the subject matter of this Petition specified in paragraph No.3 of the Petition is not acquired by the State yet the name of the State Digitally signed by Government appears in the Revenue Record and suitable directions be RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI SUBODH issued in that regard as the Petitioner is not able to deal with the SUBODH KARVE KARVE Date:
2022.10.15 15:56:27 +0530 property.
rsk 2 29-WP-11691-22.doc
3. The learned counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner has filed a civil suit for the very purpose and issue raised by the Petitioner can also be decided in the said suit. However, we note that in this Petition affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent No.4 wherein in paragraph No.9 following assertion is made:
" With reference to para No.13, I say that from available record of this office, this office has not acquired the said land mentioned in the petition for purpose which is mentioned in Pherphar and 7/12 extract i.e. for Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science. From this, it seems that Director of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Science might be the acquiring body. Also, Petitioner has not attached any documentary evidence showing that this office has acquired the said land. But there were other acquisition offices in Pune District and it is necessary to check in these offices for acquisition record."
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the assertion is made on the basis of record available. Though the Petitioner has filed a suit, we are informed by the Petitioner that written statement is not filed so far. There is no written statement on merits and the affidavit in reply reads as above.
5. The position cannot be therefore continued in perpetuity. The State Government will have to take specific stand in the matter. Considering this position, we are of the opinion that this matter needs rsk 3 29-WP-11691-22.doc to be looked into by the Collector, Pune. The Collector, Pune will call representative of the Animal Husbandry and the Land Acquisition Officer to ascertain the status of the matter and, thereafter reply can be filed including written statement in the suit. Both, to be either filed by the Collector, Pune or vetted by the Collector, Pune. Respondent No.3- Collector, Pune will note that we have specifically placed this responsibility on the Collector in view of the extent of the land involved.
6. Stand over to 28 November 2022 for the above compliance. Registry will ensure that copy of the order is placed before the Collector, Pune personally for his perusal.
(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)