Laxman Govindram Chawla And ORS v. State Of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Dept And ORS

bsb 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10815 OF 2012 Laxman Govindram Chawla & ors.

... Petitioners v/s State of Maharashtra & ors.

... Respondents Mr.Rajesh S. Datar for the petitioners.

Ms.M.S. Bane, A.G.P. For Resp. Nos.1 and 2.

Mr.G.S.Hegde along with Mr.C.M. Lokesh i/by A.R. Bhole & Co. for respondent No.3.

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C. V. BHADANG, JJ.

DATED : 28 JANUARY 2015 P.C.:

Heard.

By this petition the petitioners seek a declaration that the action on the part of the respondents in taking the possession of land Survey No.49 Hissa No.10A admeasuring 21 gunthas on the basis of the notification dated 27 March 2008, is bad in law. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to forthwith return the land admeasuring 21 gunthas to the petitioners. In the alternative, the petitioners have sought a direction to the

bsb 2 respondents to acquire the land leaving two gunthas. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are the owners of land Survey No.49 Hissa No.10A. It is stated that the respondents have acquired four plots of land from Survey No.49 Hissa No.10-Part and that was mentioned in the notification dated 27 March 2008. According to the petitioners, though the respondents had not acquired the land from Hissa No.10A, the respondents have illegally secured the possession of 21 gunthas of land from Hissa No.10A. The petitioners have relied on a report of the Circle Officer to seek the relief.

On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were the owners of four plots of land and all the four plots were notified in the notification dated 27 March 2008. It is stated that the land of the petitioners was acquired and the possession of the land was also secured by the respondents. It is submitted that merely because the notification mentions the word "10-Part" instead of "10A", the petitioners cannot seek the possession of the acquired land by taking advantage of the mistake.

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that several disputed questions of facts arise in this writ petition and the relief sought by the petitioners cannot be granted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners are really of the view that the

bsb 3 land belonging to the petitioners is not acquired by the respondents, the petitioners are free to seek the relief by filing appropriate proceedings. It would not be possible for this Court to hold that the land of the petitioners was not acquired by the petitioners in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. In view of the involvement of the disputed questions of facts in this writ petition, we dismiss the same with no order as to costs. The points raised in the writ petition are, however, kept open. (C. V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)