Bombay High Court
Smt. Shobha W/O Jagdish Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 1 July, 2016
Author: Z.A.Haq
Bench: Z.A.Haq
Judgment 1 wp720.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2014
Smt. Shobha W/o. Jagdish Sarda,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. : Municipal
Councillor & Housewife, Resident of
Anjangaon Surji, District : Amravati.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra, Through the
Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Director of Municipal Administration,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
2-A) Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3) Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
4) Collector, Amravati District : Amravati.
5) Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surji.
THROUGH :
(1) President, Municipal Council, Anjangaon
Surji, District : Amravati.
(2) Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Anjangaon
Surji, District : Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 :::
Judgment 2 wp720.14.odt
6) Suresh S/o. Dhanrajji Bundele,
Aged about 51 years, Resident of
Anjangaon Surji, District : Amravati.
7) Smt. Kiran W/o. Suryakant Pandhre,
Resident of Anjangaon Surji, District:
Amravati, aged 50 years.
8) Rupesh S/o.Chhotelal Gaur, aged 50 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati
9)
Smt. Savita W/o. Kundan Zade, aged 49 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
10) Smt. Manda W/o. Gajanan Deole, aged 48 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
11) Aadeshkumar Bobde, aged 50 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri B.N.Mohta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri D.M.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri V.S.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.5, 5(1) & 5(2).
None for the respondent Nos. 6 to 11.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned advocate for the respondent No.5 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. None appeared for the other respondents, though served.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 :::Judgment 3 wp720.14.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The respondent No.5-Municipal Council passed resolution dated 7th January, 2011 regarding deletion of reservation on the land in question. This resolution was challenged before the Collector under Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1965") by the petitioner and four others. The learned Collector, by the order dated 22nd May, 2012 suspended the operation of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council. The respondent No.6, claiming to be the purchaser of the land in question filed revision application under Section 318 of the Act of 1965 challenging the order passed by the Collector. The revision is allowed by the impugned order.
4. Though several challenges are raised and submissions on various points are made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, in my view, they are not required to be adverted to and the petition can be disposed of in view of the proposition laid down in the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Govind Vs. Collector of Dhule, reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 874 and the judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3911 of 2014 on 23rd June, 2016.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 :::Judgment 4 wp720.14.odt In the above referred judgments it is laid down that till the steps as contemplated by Section 308(2), (3) and (4)of the Act of 1965 are taken, the order passed by the Collector under Section 308 of the Act of 1965 is only an interlocutory order and does not attain finality.
It is undisputed that the steps as contemplated by Section 308(2), (3) and (4) of the Act of 1965 are not yet taken.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner, referring to para Nos. 41 and 42 of the judgment given in the case of Sanjay Govind Sapkal has argued that the revision under Section 318 of the Act of 1965 at the behest of the respondent No.6 (private party) was not maintainable.
Without dealing with the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner regarding maintainability of the revision filed by the respondent No.6, the petition is required to be allowed on the ground that the order passed by the Collector is an interlocutory order and could not have been the subject matter of challenge in revision under Section 318 of the Act of 1965.
6. Hence, the following order :
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 ::: Judgment 5 wp720.14.odt
i) Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in
Revenue Case No. 09/MMA/318/Anjangaon-Surji/2011- 12 on 27th October, 2013 is set aside and the revision application filed by the respondent No.6 is dismissed.
ii) The concerned authorities are at liberty to take further steps as contemplated by Section 308 (2), (3) and (4) of the Act of 1965.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE RRaut..
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 :::