Bombay High Court
Ashok Shahadeo Bhokare vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 9 January, 2023
Author: Mangesh S. Patil
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
42-WP-4032-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
42 WRIT PETITION NO.4032 OF 2021
WITH CA/11152/2021 IN WP/4032/2021 WITH CA/14017/2021 IN
WP/4032/2021
ASHOK SHAHADEO BHOKARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. P. Latange
AGP for Respondents/State: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 6: Mr. S. G. Bhalerao
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
DATE : 09.01.2023 PER COURT :
. Pursuant to the order passed on the last date, the Registrar (Judicial) has submitted a report inter alia verifying from the petitioners, as to if they had given any instructions to file the petition and then to withdraw it. He inter alia states that, the petitioners submitted before him that they do not know the learned advocate Mr. V. P. Latange and have denied their signatures/thumb marks appearing against their names on the Vakalatnama.
2. It transpires from the record that the petitioners have been claiming compensation in respect of lands allegedly have been acquired by the respondents. It appears that pursuant to the order of this Court, some 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2023 15:40:34 ::: 42-WP-4032-2021.odt amount was deposited by the acquiring body in this Court. However, some dispute regarding genuineness of the claim was raised and in Paragraph No.4 of the order dated 07.01.2022, respondent No.3 - Collector, Beed was directed to verify the original record and to submit a report about genuineness of the document at page-14 of this petition.
3. Pursuant to the order, a detailed report has been placed on record by the District Collector, Beed, which apparently shows that he had undertaken some inquiry and verified genuineness of the concerned File No.34/1997 and has made following observations:
" I have verified the signatures of the petitioners on the Writ Petition, on the report of service of notices as well as on the application dated 07/06/2021. The signatures on the report of service of notices did not match with signatures on the application. Petitioner Ashok Bhokare submitted that area admeasuring 0.10 R has not been acquired as shown in the award. Appasaheb Bhokare submitted that instead of 0.33 R of land, land admeasuring approximately 0.04 to 0.05 R only has been under acquisition. During hearing both of them submitted that they have no idea who has signed on the complaint dated 03/06/2021. They further told that they are not aware which advocate has taken their signatures on the Writ Petition. Both complainants did not produce any evidence nor they filed written say. In the light of above referred facts and circumstnaces, I have come to the final conclusion that the alleged demand proposal of land acquisition has been prepared elsewhere and not by the office of S.D.O. Beed. Same has been sent unauthorizedly to office of Executive Engineer, Beed Irrigation Dept. Beed. Inspite of taking search from all concerned departments, no confirmation about the file no.134/1997. The said demand proposal seems to be illegal and false as no record is available with any of the department. Someone has played fraud with Govt. and the amount so received from Govt. on the basis of alleged demand proposal could not disbursed as prayed in the petition."2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2023 15:40:34 :::
42-WP-4032-2021.odt
4. The persons who have been posed to be petitioners were before the Registrar (Judicial) and have denied their signatures/thumb marks on the Vakalatnama and they have specifically stated that they did not know the learned advocate Mr. V. P. Latange and further have specifically stated before the Registrar (Judicial) not to have given any instructions for lodging of the petition and for withdrawing it. It would be a matter covered by Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. As for as the report submitted by the Collector indicating the forgery and other criminal aspects, we would expect the learned Additional Government Pleader to take instructions as to what action the learned Collector now proposes to take in view of the report submitted to this Court.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Latange shall treat this order as a notice under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and may respond. A similar notice shall be issued to the persons posed to be the petitioners who were before the Registrar (Judicial).
7. Since respondent No.6 has deposited some money in this Court, it shall be refunded to it together with accrued interest.
8. Stand over to 23.01.2023.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) Sameer 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2023 15:40:34 :::