Praful Vishwanath Shedmake v. The State Of Maha. Thr. Its Chief Sec. Ministry Of Revenue And Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai And Other

2025:BHC-NAG:1454-DB 1 20-wp 4173.2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4173 OF 2024 ( Praful Vishwanath Shedmake vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Mr. Yash Kullarwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.Y.Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI , JJ.

ATE : FEBRUARY 13, 2025 1) Heard Mr.Kullarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2) The petitioner has been denied the special incentive of Rs.10 Lakhs under the G.R. dated 03/11/2012, on the ground that the petitioner has been unable to prove that he is actually residing at Mouja Kolsa, which is in the Tadoba Andhari Tiger Reserve (TATR). The learned counsel for the petitioner contends by inviting our attention to the report of the village Committee dated 12/05/2022 (page 34) that he was residing in village Kolsa. A perusal of the aforesaid report indicates that all that it says is that the petitioner is a permanent resident of village Kolsa. The same is the position with the residential certificate given by the Grampanchayat (page 49) in addition to which it indicates the position of 2012 and considering the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner because of the rehabilitation had shifted his residence to Bhadravati in 2012 itself, we are not inclined to accept the plea. It is trite position that person may KOLHE

2 20-wp 4173.2024.doc be a permanent resident of particular place but he actually does not residing there. We do not find anything on record to indicate the actual residence of the petitioner at Mouja Kolsa, so as to entitle him to the special package of Rs.10 Lakh, over and above the compensation of the property which he claims to own, which he would be receiving even otherwise. We therefore, do not find merit in the petition, the same is dismissed. No costs. ( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) KOLHE