Bombay High CourtWP/5566/2019dismissedrule discharged

Raju @ Rajendra Narayanrao Gaddingkar And Others v. Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati And Others

2020-01-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice Ravi K. Deshpande,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Amit B. Borkar2 pages

1 907 WP 5566-2019.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5566/2019 Raju @ Rajendra Narayanrao Gaddingkar and others Vs.

Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and others ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders Court' s or Judge'

s order of directions and Registrar'

s orders .............................................................................................................................................. Ms D.V. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri D.P. Thakre, Addl.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE & AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ.

DATED : 28th January, 2020.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the encroachers on the Government lands are entitled to benefits of the policy, in their support prescribed by the State Government. In order to take such benefit, the eligibility criteria is to establish that the person is an encroacher. The report dated 29th May, 2017 which is a subject matter of challenge in this petition by the Sub-Divisional Officer, holds that the petitioners are not the encroachers and therefore, they are denied the benefit of the policy of the State Government.

Obviously, the question as to whether the petitioners are the encroachers or not is disputed question of fact and the petitioners have effective remedy of filing a Civil Suit for declaration that they are the encroachers over the Government land and hence,

2 907 WP 5566-2019.odt entitled for the benefit. We cannot enter into this disputed question of fact nor we are sitting in appeal over the report dated 29th May, 2017.

In view of the disputed question of fact, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioners are at liberty to avail all such remedies as available in law.

JUDGE JUDGE J.Pethe