SHIVAJI HARIBHAU MURKUTE Vs. RESETTLEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have perused the order dtd. 30/1/2019, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.13481 of 2017, by which the District Rehabilitation Officer was directed to take a decision as regards the entitlement of the Petitioners for allotment of the land towards the rehabilitation measure as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the said order. It was further directed that if the Petitioners are held entitled for landed property, the same shall be identified in observance of the provisions of the Act and be allotted to the Petitioners, and the Petitioners be put in possession of the allotted land as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of such decision. It was also observed that it would be open to the District Rehabilitation Officer to deal with the dispute concerning the allotment qua the Petitioners and take appropriate decision in accordance with the provisions of the Act. It was also clarified that the Court did not deal with the issue of quantum of the amounts required to be deposited by the Petitioners and it was for the Rehabilitation Officer to take appropriate decision in the matter, in accordance with law. The said order dated 30 th January 2019 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is required to be noted, which reads, thus:

(2.) From the perusal of the above order, it is quite clear that the District Rehabilitation Officer (DRO) was required to take an appropriate decision, which appears to have been delayed. There is an apparent non-compliance of the directions of the Division Bench of this Court dtd. 30/1/2019 (supra). Now Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 appears to be also parties, who would be required to be heard in any decision, which may be taken, which was earlier not pointed out, to the Court. All these are issues, which are now required to be considered by the DRO, in accordance with law. In our opinion, it is appropriate that the DRO takes a decision as regards the Petitioners' entitlement, as all the documents which are not only submitted but repeatedly submitted, as also the Petitioners have paid the occupancy price. The Court be informed of the decision being taken by the DRO on or before the adjourned date of hearing. It is also permissible for the DRO to hear the parties and pass an appropriate order. To enable the DRO to do so, we adjourn the present proceeding finally for period of three weeks.

(3.) In the event appropriate orders are not passed by the DRO, the Court shall proceed to pass such further appropriate orders on the present proceedings.