Shri. Ranjit Dinkar Rashivade And ORS v. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur And ORS

20-WP3262-15+.DOC Santosh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2015 Ranjit Dinkar Rashivade & ors.

Gadmudshingi

...Petitioners

Versus

The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Kolhapur & ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2344 OF 2014 Sarpanch, Village Panchayat, Gadmudshingi

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Maharashtra & ors.

...Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2356 OF 2014 Grampanchayat, Gadmudshingi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Maharashtra & ors.

...Respondents

Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi, h/f Mr. Gajanan Savagave, for the Petitioners.

Mr. Ramesh D. Rane, for Respondent no.1.

Dr. K. R. Kulkarni, AGP for Respondent nos.2 to 4/State.

CORAM:

R. M. BORDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED:

11th JUNE, 2019 PC:- 1.

In these petitions the challenge is raised to the notification issued by the Collector dated 14th September, 2010, directing the division of revenue village 'Gadmudshingi' 1/2

20-WP3262-15+.DOC and constitution of new revenue village namely 'New Wadade'.

2.

An Affidavit-in-reply has been presented by Mr. Ithape, Sub-Divisional Officer, on behalf of Respondent no.2, wherein it has been stated that as a result of division of a village 'Gadmudshingi' and constitution of a separate village 'New Wadade', no inconvenience is being caused to the villagers. It is recorded in the reply that after declaration of new village 'New Wadade', election for electing the office bearers of Grampanchayat was held on 23rd July, 2015, and the elected body of the village panchayat has resumed charge of newly constituted village panchayat. The term of elected body is likely to come to an end shortly.

3.

Considering the developments occurring during the pendency of the petitions and after constitution of new village in view of the notification dated 14th September, 2010, at this stage, after lapse of nine years, we do not find any reason to interfere in the administrative orders issued by the revenue authorities.

4.

The petitions stand rejected accordingly.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [R. M. BORDE, J.] 2/2