Nearly 40 acres in Borivli was allotted to the association between 1947 and 1956 for development of cottage industries. After receiving complaints against the association over gross misuse of land, the Mumbai suburban collector on December 27, 2017, restored part of the land to the government on the grounds that there was largescale commercial use without the government’s permission. The association challenged the order before the additional commissioner (Konkan division), who upheld the collector’s order.
Subsequently, the association filed an appeal before then revenue minister Patil, who backed the collector’s order. In his five-page order on September 9, 2019, the minister said the conditions on which the land had been allotted were violated, and it was being used for commercial purposes. “In the reasons mentioned in the order, I am rejecting the appeal and confirm the order passed by the suburban collector and Kokan division additional commissioner,” said Patil.
Aggrieved by Patil’s order, the association filed a writ petition before the Bombay high court. Justices S V Gangapurwala and Sandeep Marne quashed and set aside Patil’s order, saying the association had not been heard, and sent it back to the revenue minister. “The proceedings under section 257 of the Maharashtra land revenue code are quasi-judicial proceedings; the party against whom the order is passed is entitled to be heard, that is the cardinal requirement of the principles of natural justice. As the order is passed without hearing the petitioner, we are inclined to remit the matter to the minister,” said the court.
Patil had mentioned in his order that the petitioner was given adequate opportunities to present its case, but it sought time to file a reply and that was rejected by cabinet members. The petitioner was asked to make submissions within a week, but there was no response.
In his 11-page order, Vikhe Patil cancelled all the previous orders. “Orders passed by both collector and additional commissioner appear to be defective,’’ said Vikhe Patil.
He pointed out that since the association had directly purchased the land, it was beyond the collector’s powers to impose conditions on using the land. “From the records, it appears most of the land has been purchased directly. As a result, no conditions can be imposed. In addition, it was found that no agreement was reached with the collector on utilisation of land,” said Vikhe Patil in his order.
