IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/8022/2010 GANESHPRASAD GHYANSHYAMDAS CHOUDHARI V/S THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Shri H.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri D.R.Korde,AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Shri S.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.5 ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Heard respective counsel. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned order, without hearing the petitioner, findings of facts are already recorded against him and those findings are contrary to the earlier settled facts in the matter. He points out that there is also an order of Civil Court in favour of the petitioner and it has been over-ruled. All this has happened as respondent No.3 is mis-using his office and the petitioner is being victimized. He has invited attention to the fact that allotment of land in favour of the petitioner is recommended by respondent No.2 and also by respondent No.4. Initial entry is because of lease executed by the then Municipal Council in favour of the petitioner and its extension once for the period of ten years, which expired in 1972. Learned counsel states that had the petitioner been given a fair opportunity of hearing with open mind, the petitioner could have cleared all doubts and showed to respondent No.2 how the grievance made by respondent No.3 is incorrect. 2 WP/8022/2010 3. Learned AGP as also learned Advocate Shri Deshmukh contend that the document impugned before this Court dated 22.7.2010 is not an order at all. It is only a show cause notice and the petitioner has filed a reply to it. Said reply will be looked into and after hearing the petitioner, appropriate orders will be passed. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel for respective parties, I have perused the impugned order. It is styled as notice and it calls upon the petitioner to show cause as to why fine as per the provisions of Section 50(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code should not be recovered from him. In earlier paragraphs it is mentioned that the petitioner is running his petrol pump unauthorizedly by encroaching on S.No.95 of mouje Hingoli. It is in this background, his attention has been invited to provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 5. The petitioner has contended that finding of encroachment ought not to have been recorded by the Collector. I do not see any such finding. It is only part and parcel of the show cause notice. The petitioner can point out all relevant facts and defences to respondent No.2 Collector. Respondent No.2 is duty bound to enquire into the same and to find out whether the petitioner can be labelled as encroacher. The petitioner can also point out the recommendations made by the office of respondent No. 2 and respondent No.4 in his favour during the hearing. Respondent No.2, after its due appreciation has to pass appropriate orders in the matter. 3 WP/8022/2010 6. The contention that respondent No.2 has mechanically issued show cause notice because of the influence of respondent No.3 also cannot be accepted. The petitioner can point out relevant facts to respondent No.2 and respondent No.2, being a quasi judicial authority, has to look into those facts and record a finding with open mind on the same. The petitioner is, therefore, free to point out the alleged mischief/ influence of respondent No.3 in the matter. 7. With liberty to the petitioner to challenge the adverse order of Collector, if he finds it necessary, present Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl