PUNJARAM MITHU KIRAD Vs. KHANDELWAL FERRO ALLOYS LTD
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
PUNJARAM MITHU KIRAD
KHANDELWAL FERRO ALLOYS LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE petitioner challenges the order dated 30-3-1971 passed by the Sub - Divisional Officer, with powers of the Collector and the order dated 31-7-1971 passed by the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, in an appeal which was treated as a revision by the Commissioner. The petitioner claims to be the owner of Khasras 1 and 5 of Mouza Mahadulla, tahsil Ramtek, district Nagpur on the death of the original owner Mahipat son of Madhao Mahajan and his widow Sarjabai. The State Government granted a mining lease in favour of the respondent No. 1 in respect of this piece of land and the Collector
(2.) BY his letter dated 24th March, 1969 asked the Sub - Divisional Officer, Ramtek to fix the compensation under Section 48 (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and to arrange to tender the amount to the land owner. The Sub - Divisional Officer by his order dated 30-3-1971 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre and fixed the price accordingly on consideration of the material before him. 2. Before the revision application was decided by the Commissioner, the Collector had granted a working permission to the respondent No. 1 by his order dated 13-5-1971, but this permission was set aside by the Commissioner by his order dated 18th August 1971 on the ground that there was no order of delegation in favour of the respondent No. 1 and no notices were given to the aggrieved persons. The orders of the Sub - Divisional Officer dated 30-3-1971 and of the Commissioner dated 31-7-1971 have been challenged by the petitioner by this writ petition.
(3.) DURING the pendency of this writ petition, the Collector again granted working permission to the respondent No. 1 on 27-10-1971 and this again was challenged before the Commissioner and the Commissioner by his order dated 14-1-1972 cancelled the working permission granted by the order dated 27-10-1971. Against this order of the Commissioner, the respondent No. 1 filed an appeal to the State Government which is said to be pending before the State Government. In this petition we are not in fact concerned with the grant of the working permission and the appeal therefrom. The matter regarding the working permission is pending before the State Government who is the competent authority to decide the appeal and we are not called upon by this petition to decide that matter which is pending before the State Government. Nothing that may be said in this judgment will prejudice the appeal which is pending before the State Government. .;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.