Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Laxman Limba Kamble And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 28 February, 2023

Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye

       Digitally
       signed by
       VINA
VINA   ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
       2023.03.02
       14:49:06
       +0530
                                                             (2) wp 9166.2016.doc


    Vina Khadpe


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9166 OF 2016

                  1.   Laxman Limba Kamble                 .. Petitioners
                       Age: 60 years Occ: Agri.
                  2.   Tanaji Digamber Kamble
                       Age: 40 years Occ: Agri.
                  3.   Bharat Limba Kamble
                       Age: 50 years Occ: Agri.
                  4.   Dadasaheb Laxman Kamble
                       Age: 38 years Occ: Agri.
                  5.   Rambhau Limba Kamble
                       Age: 55 years Occ: Agri.
                  6.   Maruti Limba Kamble
                       Age: 48 years Occ: Agri.
                  7.   Smt. Jejabai Limba Ovhole
                       Age: 55 years Occ: Agri.
                  8.   Shivaji Digamber Kamble
                       Age: 33 years Occ: Agri.
                  9.   Laxman Babu Kamble
                       Age: 55 years Occ: Agri.
                  10. Subhash Mahadeo Hanvatea
                      Age: 38 years Occ: Agri.
                  11. Nana Digamber Kamble
                      Age: 43 years Occ: Agri.
                  12. Vijay Laxman Kamble
                      Age: 35 years Occ: Agri.
                  13. Smt. Maynabai Hari Gaikwad
                      Age: 55 years Occ: Agri.
                  14. Fannci Kerba Petade
                      Age: 64 years Occ: Agri.


                                                  1/6
                                                 (2) wp 9166.2016.doc

15. Malan Shankar Kambale
    Age: 62 years Occ: Agri.
16. Dasharat Kundilak Kambale
    Age: 45 years Occ: Agri.
17. Bitu Eaknath Kamble
    Age: 70 years Occ: Agri.
18. Namdeo Shama Kasbe
    Age: 38 years Occ: Agri.
19. Sarjarao Shankar Kamble
    Age: 45 years Occ: Agri.
20. Babu Bheva Kamble
    Age: 66 years Occ: Agri.
21. Sharvan Kundilek Kamble
    Age: 40 years Occ: Agri.
     Petitioner Nos.1 to 21 all
     R/o - at post Pimpri, (pa.Malwadi),
     Tal. Barshi Dist. Solapur
           Versus
1.   The State of Maharashtra                  .. Respondents
3.   Tahsildar,
     Barshi District Solapur
4.   The Collector, Solapur
5.   Dist. Forest Offcer
     Vijapur Road, Solapur

Mr. Sharad T. Bhosale for the Petitioners.
Mrs. M. S. Bane, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6.

                      CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA &
                              M.M. SATHAYE , JJ.

                      DATE      : 28TH FEBRUARY, 2023.

P.C. :

1.        Rule.   Rule is made returnable forthwith.   Learned


                               2/6
                                                    (2) wp 9166.2016.doc

AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1, 3

to 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks leave to delete

Respondent No.2. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out

during the course of the day. Re-verifcation is dispensed with.

Taken up for fnal hearing with consent of the parties. Heard

both sides. Perused record.


2.        By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the Petitioner is seeking writ of Mandamus directing

Respondent Nos.3 and 4 (Tahsildar Barshi, Dist. Solapur &

Collector, Solapur) to consider and decide the Petitioners'

representation which is at Exhibit 'G' to the Petition in the light

of the Govt. Resolutions dated 24th December 1978 and 28th

November, 1991. The Petitioners also seek writ of certiorari to

quash and set aside order dated 8th May, 2015 passed by

Respondent No.3.


3.        Learned counsel for the Petitioners has invited our

attention to the impugned order dated 8th May 2015 wherein

the Government Resolutions which according to the Petitioners,

are applicable for taking a decision on their rights, are not

considered. He further invited our attention to communication



                               3/6
                                                        (2) wp 9166.2016.doc

dated 13th May, 2015 issued by the same authority who passed

impugned Order, to Sub-Divisional Offcer (SDO), Solapur No.1,

after the impugned order is passed. In the said communication,

the Tahsildar has called for a report from the SDO, Solapur-1,

pursuant to directions from Collector, about the Petitioners'

application for regularization in the light of Government

Resolution dated 28th November, 1991.


4.           Apparently, from the record it appears that after the

impugned order was passed, the Tahsildar has again called for

the report from the SDO, Solapur-1, Solapur on the issue raised

by the Petitioners.


5.           In view of the said subsequent communication dated

13th May, 2015, issued by the Authority after passing of the

impugned order, we fnd it appropriate to direct the concerned

Authority      to   reconsider   the    Petitioners'   application   for

regularization in the light of the Government Resolutions relied

upon by the Petitioners.


6.           Hence, we pass the following order;

                             :: ORDER :

:

(i) The impugned order dated 8th May, 2015 is quashed 4/6 (2) wp 9166.2016.doc and set aside.
(ii) The Petitioners are directed to appear before Respondent No.3 - Tahsildar, Barshi, District Solapur, on 13th March, 2023 at 11.00 am.
(iii) The Petitioners are at liberty to produce the documents along with Government Resolutions relied upon by them in support of their case.
(iv) Respondent No.3 is directed to give hearing to the Petitioners and consider their Application / Representation along with documents and Government Resolutions submitted in support of the Petitioners' case and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within 4 weeks from the date of Petitioners' appearance.
(v) It is clarifed that this Court has not expressed any opinion about the claims of the Petitioners and the Authority shall decide the same on its own merits and in accordance with law. The Order that will be passed , be communicated to Petitioners within 1 week from the date of decision.
(vi) If the Petitioners' representation is decided in their favour, consequential orders be passed within 4 weeks from the date of decision. If the Petitioners' representation is rejected, the Petitioners will be at 5/6 (2) wp 9166.2016.doc liberty to fle appropriate proceedings as permissible under law.
(vii) The Writ Petition is disposed of and Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No Order as to costs.
(viii) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE , J.) (R.D. DHANUKA, J.) 6/6