1 (WP 5352 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5352 OF 2010 Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar Shikshan Sanstha, Dist. Kolhapur ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Chetan G. Patil i/b. Mr Prashant S. Bhavake for Petitioner Mrs. P.S. Cardozo -AGP for Respondents 1 to 5. ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the State. 2. Rule was granted by this Court on 23rd September, 2010 and an order of status quo was granted. Rule on interim relief was also made returnable on 20th October, 2010. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though the land was allotted to the Petitioner by order dated 27th 2 (WP 5352 of 2010) February, 1970 by the Collector in order to enable the Petitioner to use the said land for the purpose of cultivation under the earn and learn scheme for the student residing in its backward class hostel. Thereafter by order dated 22.7.2007, the Petitioner was asked to show cause why the possession of the said land should not be taken by the Government . It is the case of the Petitioner that no inquiry was held and without giving any hearing to the Petitioner, a final order was passed by the Under Secretary, Maharashtra State dated 19.5.2010 directing the Collector to take possession of the said land and pursuant thereto, a notice was issued on 28.6.2010 asking the Petitioner to hand over the possession of the said land on 5.7.2010. Since there was a controversy whether the possession was already taken by the Respondents, they were directed to file an affidavit. An affidavit in reply has been filed and in the said affidavit, it is stated that the land was taken in the 3 (WP 5352 of 2010) presence of the two neutral persons and panchnama to that effect has been filed. 4. Perusal of the panchnama, indicates that only a symbolic possession was taken on that date. It is an admitted position that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner and no notice was issued by the Respondents before passing the impugned order. 5. That being the position. The impugned order obviously has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. The land in question was allotted to the Petitioner in 1979. The Petitioner had taken possession of the said land and thereafter, without holding any inquiry and without affording any opportunity of being heard, the impugned order has been passed by the Respondents. It is a settled position in law that if any order entails adverse civil consequences, it is the duty of the Respondents to give personal hearing to the Petitioner. 4 (WP 5352 of 2010) 6. That being the position. The impugned order is set aside. Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b) and (c). The symbolic possession which is taken by the Respondents is returned to the Petitioner herein. 7. It is, however, clarified that the Respondents will be at liberty to issue fresh show cause notice to the Petitioner and the give him an opportunity of being heard or being personally heard and, thereafter, the Respondents may pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of. However, the Petitioner may not create any third party rights or induct any third party in respect of the said premises. (V.M. KANADE J.)