1 wp_11099.17.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 11099 OF 2017

Sanjay Keshavrao Bhosale and another

.. Petitioners

Versus

The Deputy Collector, Aurangabad

and others

.. Respondents

Shri S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri D. R. Kale, Incharge G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Shri S. P. Brahme Advocate h/f Shri P. C. Mayure, Advocate for

Respondent Nos. 3 to 12 and 14.

Shri A. M. karad, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 15, 17 and

18.

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 13841 OF 2018

Bhagwan Ambadas Ubale and others

.. Petitioners

Versus

Dhanaji Bhima Pawar and others

.. Respondents

Shri A. M. karad, Advocate h/f Shri Girish N. Kulkarni

(Mardikar), Advocate for the Petitioners.

Shri S. P. Brahme Advocate h/f Shri P. C. Mayure, Advocate for

Respondent Nos. 1 to 12.

Shri D. R. Kale, Incharge G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 13 and

14.

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 2232 OF 2019

Ram Gyanba Tangade

.. Petitioner

Versus

Dhanaji Bhima Pawar and others

.. Respondents

2 wp_11099.17.odt

Shri A. M. karad, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Shri S. P. Brahme Advocate h/f Shri P. C. Mayure, Advocate for

Respondent Nos. 1 to 12.

Shri D. R. Kale, Incharge G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 13 to 15.

CORAM :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE :

14TH NOVEMBER, 2022.

FINAL ORDER :

.

These petitions emanate out of the order dated 18.08.2017

passed by the Deputy Collector (General Administration)

Aurangabad thereby holding that the transfer of the lands was in

violation of the provisions of Section 31 of the Maharashtra

Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act,

1947 (for short Act of 1947”). In Writ Petition No. 13841 of 2018

and Writ Petition No. 2232 of 2019, order passed by the Deputy

Collector was questioned before the Additional Divisional

Commissioner, who was pleased to allow the appeals and set

aside the order of the Deputy Collector by his order dated

15.01.2018. The original complainants (respondent Nos. 1 to 12)

filed revision before the Hon’ble Minister, who was pleased to

allow the same setting aside the order of the Additional

Divisional Commissioner and confirming the order of the Deputy

Collector.

2.

As against this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 11099

of 2017 failed to avail the statutory remedies against the order

passed by the Deputy Collector dated 18.08.2017 and have

proceeded to file present petition directly before this Court. Mr.

Brahme, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to

12 raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the

Writ Petition No. 11099 of 2017. Ordinarily, this Court would be

3 wp_11099.17.odt

loath in entertaining a Writ Petition when a statutory remedy is

available. However, considering nature of the order that I

propose to pass, the objection of alternate remedy raised by Mr.

Brahme, in my opinion would not survive.

3.

The orders impugned in the present petitions are assailed

on variety of grounds viz (i) that there was inordinate delay in

initiation of proceedings; (ii) that on account of the lands falling

within Notified Area with appointment of CIDCO as Special

Planning Authority, provisions of Section 31 of the Act become

inapplicable; (iii) that on account of the fact that the transferees

are agriculturists also, provisions of Section 31 of the Act are

inapplicable; (iv) that provisions of Section 31 were introduced in

the Act with effect from 29.06.1977 and, therefore, the

transaction of first sale pertaining to the year 1972 cannot be

affected by the Section 31 of the Act of 1947 introduced

thereafter and (iv) that a permission was indeed obtained for the

first transaction of sale effected in the year 1972 and therefore no

permission was necessary for su