1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.529 OF 2008 Sadanand Parshuram Nakhwa .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.N.Shah i/b. Piyush Shah for petitioner Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 8th April 2008 P.C. . The petitioner is aggrieved by an order passed by the Minister of State for Revenue and Forest, Government of Maharashtra dated 4th October 2007 (Exh.P), rejecting the application which was preferred by the petitioner. 2. The submission of Mr.Shah for petitioner is that the petitioner has constructed a shed and the shed is in existence for the last more than 2 40 years. The activity carried on from the shed is to assist the fishermen and other concerned for maintaining and repairing fishing equipments. This is not a shed which is used for either residence or other business activities. In fact, its existence has not been objected to by the Maharashtra Maritime Board. (Board for short). In such circumstances, the direction of Collector dated 2nd August 2002 could not have been relied upon to deny the relief to the petitioner. In any event, when this Court directed the concerned authority by its order in Writ Petition No.6758 of 2002 and Writ Petition No.866 of 2005 to take a decision afresh means that it was expected as to whether the structure should be tolerated and regularised and while doing so, the Collector’s decision should not have influenced the order of the Minister. Similarly, a technical ground that there is no application for regularisation on record and that what was before this Court was a letter addressed by the then President of the 3 Maharashtra Pollution Control Board dated 21st June 2001 and that could not be termed as any application for regularisation, could not be basis for rejecting the petitioner’s request. Thus, the impugned order is erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Further, his submission is that the order is not reasoned as it does not refer to several aspects including the No objection from the Board. 3. When this matter was earlier placed before me earlier and the petitioner was protected, I had directed Mr.Patne, learned A.G.P. orally to take instructions and he has filed an affidavit of the Collector, Dist. Raigad. The Collector has stated that the structure admeasures 8.80 x 8.00 mtr and of height 3.40 mtr. on the eastern coast and is within the Coastal Regulation Zone. It is without any permission from Revenue Department. It is illegal and, therefore, a notice was issued 4 to the petitioner dated 6th February 1999. The Gram Panchayat Chanaje had prepared a list on 17th January 1996 in which 101 persons are mentioned as encroachers. The matter was placed before the Minister of State for Revenue in pursuance of the Court’s order and relying upon the Collector’s communication dated 2nd August 2002, the matter has been decided. In para 6 of the affidavit filed on 14th March 2008, the Collector refers to a communication dated 1st March 2008 addressed to the Board and seeking clarification with regard to the authority or power of Board to grant permission dated 8th December 1982 to the predecessor in title of the petitioner Parshuram Nakhwa. Rent has been recovered from 1989 till 1996 from petitioner’s father. Thus, between the Board and Collector/Revenue department there are communications and letters. 4. Relying upon this very fact the 5 contention of Mr.Shah is that the structure has been in existence for quite some time and straight away it has been termed as unauthorised or an encroachment. That apart, there is no consideration of the request for regularisation. Reliance is placed by him upon sections 50 and 51 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 5. A bare perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the Minister concerned who was expected to apply his independent mind to the entire controversy has chosen to rely upon the communication of the Collector dated 2nd August 2002. He has not referred to any of the documents which have been placed before him including the rent receipts. He refers to the fact that the Board had granted permission to the petitioner for construction of temporary shed in 1982 still why the request for regularisation could not be considered is not clear from the order of Minister. That apart, it appears that 6 the Minister was influenced to a great extent by the fact that there was no proper application for regularisation of the structure made by the petitioner, on his record. 6. In such circumstances, I suggested to Mr.Shah as to whether petitioner is ready and willing to make an application for regularisation so as to leave no room for any controversy and he stated that petitioner is ready to make an application within three weeks. His only request is that the said application be placed before the appropriate authority and due consideration should be given to it and after hearing petitioner a proper and reasoned order be passed thereon. Learned A.G.P. makes a statement that if such an application is made, the same would be duly forwarded to the concerned authority. 7. In such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy and 7 affording a last opportunity to the petitioner, following order would meet the ends of justice. (a) Petitioner is granted three week’s time to make an application for regularisation annexing therewith all necessary and relevant documents; (b) If such an application is filed before the Collector, Dist. Raigad or any other authority in the Revenue Department, still the same shall be placed before the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, who shall after proper and advance intimation to the petitioner fix a date of hearing and after hearing the petitioner and permitting him to produce such documents as are relevant and necessary, proceed to pass a reasoned order without being influenced by the order of the Minister 8 dated 4th October 2007. Orders to be passed within a period of six weeks from the date of appearance of petitioner; 8. Needless to clarify that if no application is made for regularisation within a period of three weeks, the authority concerned to proceed and take such action as is permissible in law pertaining to the disputed structure. 9. Needless to further add that if the application is made and the same is pending consideration of the Secretary, then, till such time as the Secretary communicates his decision to the petitioner, the Collector, Dist. Raigad so also Tahsildar and all concerned officers shall maintain status quo with regard to the disputed structure. Even the petitioner shall maintain status quo as of today with regard to disputed structure. 9 10. This order is passed based upon the statement of Mr.Shah that none other than petitioner is in possession of the subject structure. All contentions of both sides on merits are kept open. Petition disposed of. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)