Balwant Bhimashankar Dehadry v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2716 OF 2019 Balwant Bhimashankar Dehadry, Age: 75 years, Occ: Retired, R/o. Guridatta Colony, Kanda Market Road, Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar ..

PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

The State of Maharashtra Department of Revenue & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 2.

The Collector, Ahmednagar District Ahmednagar 3.

The Sub Divisional Officer Shirdi, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar 4.

The Tahsildar Rahata, District Ahmednagar ..RESPONDENTS Mr Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicants; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondents CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND NITIN W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : 12th MARCH, 2019 ORAL ORDER :

Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner.

(2) 2.

As the grievance raised in the petition is being limited one in the nature of non decision by the respondents-authorities, the petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage.

3.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable forthwith.

Learned A.G.P. waives service of notice for all respondents.

4.

The petitioner had approached the authorities submitting various representations from the year 2015 to 2018 and last representation is submitted to the Collector, Ahmednagar on 29th November, 2018. The sum and substance of these representations is, under various Government Resolutions, land of the petitioner is returned back to the petitioner but without well which was there in the land.

5.

We make it very clear at this stage that we are only referring to sum and substance of the

(3) contentions raised in the representations and we have not assessed the merits of the contentions or the authenticity of the statement made in the representations as we propose to leave this issue of assessment of the merit of the representations to the respondents - authorities.

6.

The petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No. 2 - Collector, Ahmednagar to take appropriate decision on the representation dated 29th November, 2018 as early as possible and not later than twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Needless to state that respondent No. 2 is at liberty to call for all relevant record from his office or from his subordinate so as to satisfy himself about merits of the representation.

7.

With these observations/directions, the petition is disposed of.

( NITIN W. SAMBRE ) (PRASANNA B. VARALE) JUDGE JUDGE Tupe