Sri Vinod Bakkla Waghla & Anr. vs. Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur & Anr. [02.02.2016]

Bombay High Court 

Writ Petition No. 9528 of 2014 (2 Feb, 2016)

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the respondents. The petitioners applied for allotment of specific land for the purposes of starting business of cement manufacturing as well as brick manufacturing by taking loan facilities from Mahatma Phule Magasvargiya Vikas Mahamandal. By the communications dated 8th September, 2011 and 17 November, 2011, the office of the District Collector informed the petitioners that all the three lands sought by the petitioners are gairan lands and, therefore, in terms of GR dated 12 July, 2011, allotment of gairan lands cannot be made. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the application made by the petitioners was prior to the Government Resolution dated 12 July, 2011 and, before the said Government Resolution, the said application was processed. He, therefore, submitted that there is no impediment in the way of allotting the land sought by the petitioners.

2. We have perused the government resolution dated 12 July, 2011 which is based on directions contained in judgment and order dated 28 January, 2011 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1132 of 2011 in the case of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab 2011 11 SCC 396 The Apex Court held that grazing or gairan land shall not be alienated except for the public purpose of meeting the needs of the villagers. The Government Resolution has been issued on the basis of directions contained in the order of the Apex Court. Therefore, we find no error in the action of the State Government when it decline to allot gairan land to the petitioners.

3. If the petitioners desire to apply for allotment of another suitable land, it is always open for the petitioners to make a fresh application to the appropriate authority of the State Government. If such fresh application is made, the same shall be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law.

4. Subject to above directions, the petition is rejected.

Source : https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117ebc2713e179478b3a88