SHITAL PRABHAKAR CHANDANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner is challenging the communications dtd. 9/11/2021 and 15/11/2021 issued by Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and for direction to the said Authorities to issue permission for conversion of subject land bearing Gat No. 2700 admeasuring 8 H 84 R situated at Atpadi, Tal. Atpadi, District Sangli into Non Agricultural ('NA for short)' industrial use without insisting for payment of 'irrigation restoration charges'

(3.) Few facts necessary for disposal of the petition are as under. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the subject matter land. As the Petitioner desired to change the use of the subject land and convert it to NA (industrial) use for construction of cold storage and agricultural related business, he applied on 4/2/2021 to Respondent No.4 under Sec. 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('MLRC' for short) and submitted necessary documents. Respondent No.5 vide its letter dtd. 4/6/2021 directed the Petitioner to submit further documents and pursuant thereto, the Petitioner applied for Non Objection Certificates ('NOC' for short) of various departments. One of the NOC required was of Respondent No.5. According to the Petitioner, the Water Resources Department has laid down certain procedure under Government Resolution (GR) dtd. 6/3/2009 for issuance of NOC for which, charge per hectare is levied towards expenses of irrigation restoration. Vide Circular dtd. 3/6/2021, Respondent No.1 reviewed this policy and it was decided 'not to charge and recover' the same for issuance of NOC. Under the earlier policy, a charge of Rs.1.00 lakh per hectare was levied. The Petitioner applied for NOC on 22/6/2021 of Respondent No.5, who vide its letter dtd. 2/7/2021 issued NOC, without charging for the 'irrigation restoration'. NOC from Respondent No.3 was not issued within reasonable period. In the meantime, vide Circular dtd. 11/8/2021, the policy was again revised and earlier policy was restored, thereby again deciding to impose 'irrigation restoration charges' in terms of earlier Circular dtd. 6/3/2009. Accordingly, by impugned communication dtd. 9/11/2021, NOC was issued subject to condition of payment of irrigation restoration charges in terms of Circular dtd. 11/8/2021. Similarly, by impugned communication dtd. 15/11/2021, Respondent No.4 directed the Petitioner to pay the said charges, recording that only after such deposit, further action for grant of permission will be taken. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court.