Bombay High Court
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra And 4 Ors on 31 March, 2022
Author: Bharati Dangre
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/3 32-wp-1130-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1130 OF 2021
Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and 4 .. Respondents
Ors.
...
Mr. Ashish Kamat a/w. Mr. Ashwin Bhadang and Mr. Murtuza
i/b. M/s. Federal & Company for the Petitioners.
Mr. Kedar Dighe, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 31st MARCH, 2022 P.C:-
1. Heard respective parties at length. The grievance of the petitioner is against the impugned order passed by the Collector resulting into reduction of area of his holding.
Pursuant to the power being exercised by the Collector under Section 135 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is in violation of the principles of natural justice and on merits and also since the impugned order which do not refect, as to on what basis the Collector has arrived at such a conclusion, when the property card of the year 1964 showed the particular rrpillai ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2022 10:56:54 ::: 2/3 32-wp-1130-2021.odt holding of the petitioners.
On being confronted with the aforesaid proposition the learned AGP has argued that notice was issued to the petitioner, but admittedly there is no proof of the notice being received by them.
2. As far as merits are concerned, learned AGP would support the impugned order by submitting that the GAT Book of the year 1964 was placed before the Collector and since he noted the discrepancy in the entries recorded in the GAT Book as against the actual measurement which is carried out by the DSLR in presence of the complainant i.e. respondent no. 3 to the petition who sought correction in the record and the boundaries, the measurement was carried out.
3. The aforesaid submission of the AGP cannot be borne out from the impugned order as since what the Collector has recorded is a fact that there was a discrepancy in the GAT Book and the actual measurements which is carried out. Apparently the GAT Book which has recorded and at present the entry which is projected is of the year 1964 ought to be based upon actual measurements of the plot at the relevant time. It is also possible that prior to this entry in the GAT Book, there could have been entry in respect of the property at the time when the village arrangements were actually fxed.
It was therefore incumbent upon the Collector to refer to the earlier entries and then arrive at a conclusion, if there was an error in the record based on the actual rrpillai ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2022 10:56:54 ::: 3/3 32-wp-1130-2021.odt measurements carried out.
But short of this the Collector has discussed the entire fact fnding report of the DSLR and arrived at a conclusion that there is a discrepancy, which in my considered opinion is not based on sound reasoning.
4. When the Learned AGP was confronted with this issue and coming from Mr. Kamat that the petitioners are ready to bear the expenses of the measurement, let the learned AGP obtain necessary instructions from the concerned Collector on this aspect of the matter.
5. Rejoinder dated 18th December, 2021 is taken on record.
6. Stand over to 1st April, 2022. To be listed frst on board.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) rrpillai ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2022 10:56:54 :::