wp909.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.909 OF 2011 1) Indus Towers Limited, having registered office at Aravali, Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj Phase II, New Delhi-110070 and having its office at Skyline Icon, 3rd Floor, Near Mittal Industrial Estate, Andheri Kurla Road (East), Mumbai-400 059 and another office at 501/504, Pentagon P1 Tower, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411028, 2) Bharti Infratel Limited, having its registered office at Aravali, Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj Phase II, New Delhi-110070 and having its office at 7 Floor, Interface Building, Malad Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064, Through its Constituted Attorney, Indus Towers Ltd., Petitioner No.1. 3) Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd., having its registered office at Peninsula Corporate Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013, Through its Constituted Attorney, Indus Towers Ltd., Petitioner No.1. ...PETITIONERS. wp909.11 2 VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Revenue & Forests, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, 2) The Collector, Dist-Jalgaon, 3) The Collector, Dist-Nanded, 4) The Collector, Dist-Parbhani, 5) The Collector, Dist-Ahmednagar, 6) The Collector, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.R.N. Dhorde Advocate i/b. Shri. Sachin S. Deshmukh Advocate for Petitioners. Shri. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 9TH FEBRUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. wp909.11 3 2. The Petitioners seek directions to Respondents to allow them to set-up telecommunication network in rural area and to take note of intimation issued by the Petitioners and issue Sanad in favour of the Petitioners in respect of the change of user of the agricultural land for non agricultural purposes. 3. Shri. Dhorde, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that in view of the provisions of Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the intimations were given by the Petitioner Companies to the responsible officers of the revenue department namely, Sub Divisional Officer, Tahsildar of respective Districts. The Authorities, instead of passing orders on the said applications, have issued straightway notices/orders directing the Petitioners to deposit an amount byway of non agricultural tax/fine. The learned counsel for the Petitioners wp909.11 4 placed reliance on the Judgment in the case of Bombay Environmental Action Group & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1992 (2) ALL M.R. 624 and the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court (CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ.) in Writ Petition No.257 of 2010 (Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others). It is further submitted that the procedure enunciated under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, has not been followed by the revenue officers. 4. The learned A.G.P., on instructions, submits that though the Petitioners pleaded in Para 19 of the Petition that the intimation as required under the provisions Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, was given, but no documents are placed on record. It is submitted that the revenue officers had called upon the concerned Companies, along with record, to put-up their case; but they have not attended wp909.11 5 the office of the respective revenue officers. 5. The learned A.G.P. further submits that the Petitioners case is not covered under the provisions of Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which statement is disputed by the counsel appearing for the Petitioners. It is the case of the State that the notices annexed to the Petition are of different nature in respect of the respective lands. The issue in respect of intimation under Section 44-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is different than the issue in respect of recovery of land revenue from the land owners/occupiers. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the Judgments and Orders passed by the Bombay High Court. We have perused the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. wp909.11 6 7. In the facts of the case, we observe that the Petitioners are entitled to appear before the concerned revenue officers and put-up their case, file written submissions. In case the Petitioners do so, the concerned revenue officers shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within three weeks from the date of appearance of the Petitioners or their authorized representatives. The Petitioners shall present their case before the concerned officers between the period from 14th February, 2011 to 21st February, 2011. The revenue officers are entitled to pass appropriate orders on its own merits, within three weeks therefrom and communicate the same to the Petitioners or their authorized representatives. 8. This order is restricted in respect of the Petitioners alone. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. For a period of four weeks from today, ad interim order passed by this Court on 7th February 2011, shall continue wp909.11 7 in respect of the Petitioners. 9. With these observations the Writ Petition is disposed of. . Authenticated copy of this order be provided to the requesting parties. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/FEB11/wp909.11