Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1275 (BOM)

KRISHNA VISHNU DESHMUKH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2006-08-21

S.RADHAKRISHNAN, V.M.KANADE

body2006
Advocate Appeared For petitioners: S. G. Karandikar For respondent Nos. 2 and 3: V. P. Malvankar, A.G.P. JUDGMENT DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. :- By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 17th October, 2002 passed by the Honble Revenue lster of State of Maharashtra being respondent No. 1 herein. 2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The respondent No.1 though duly served, remained nt. The brief facts are, that the petitioners are claiming that their ancestors the owners of lands Survey Nos. 138 and 154 at village Nandgaon, Taluka aI, District Pune. It appears that the lands were allotted to forefathers of the petitioners in the year 1885. Sometime in the year 1922, the names of the stors of the petitioners were deleted and the suit lands were shown as moment lands. However, it appears that no notice was given to the ancestors e petitioners. Being the ancestral property, the petitioners continued to cultivate the said lands and even in the year 1956, the ancestors of the petitioners were shown as "Kabjedar" i.e. they were shown in possession. In the year I the petitioners came to know that though they were in possession of the suit I being their ancestral property, however the record indicated that the lands shown as Government lands. In view thereof, the petitioners had immediate made an application dated 6th July, 1995 to the Collector of Pune, se necessary changes in the Revenue Record. 3. In pursuance of the said application, the Collector of Pune - respondent No.2 herein had directed by its letter dated 11th September, 1995 to Divisional Officer of Maval to inquire into the matter and submit a report. Sub Divisional Officer, in turn, by his letter dated 27th September, 1995 director the Tahsildar, Maval to inquire into the matter and submit a report. concerned Tahsildar at Maval submitted the report on 6th October, 199 requested that the matter should be inquired in accordance with the provision section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners thereafter made an application through its power of attorney holder to Revenue Minister on 19th July, 1995. concerned Tahsildar at Maval submitted the report on 6th October, 199 requested that the matter should be inquired in accordance with the provision section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The petitioners thereafter made an application through its power of attorney holder to Revenue Minister on 19th July, 1995. In pursuance thereto, the Hon’ble Re Minister directed respondent No.2, by a communication dated 24th January 1996 directing the Collector respondent No.2 herein to inquire into the ma accordance with the provisions of section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Revenue Code, 1966 and submit a report within 15 days. As no report submitted, again a reminder was sent on 20th February, 1996 . 4. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Officer, after the inquiry, submit report dated 19th March, 1996 mentioning therein that the lands at Surcey 138 and 154 of village Nandgaon belonged to the petitioners and it is ancestral property and the same should be restored to them in accordance the provisions of the Bombay Merged Territories Miscellaneous Alie Abolition Act, 1955. Again on 25th July, 1996 a letter was sent to the Col respondent No.2 herein by the Revenue and Forest Department directing take further steps for restoring regnant of land to the petitioners herein. 5. In the year 1997, the Honble Minister of Forests and Revenue, letter dated 15th February, 1997 asked the District Collector, Pune to whether the provisions of the Mumbai Merged Territories Miscellaneous Abolition Act, 1955 would apply to the suit lands. As no report came from District Collector, a reminder was again sent. Finally, the Honble Revenue Minister, by his communication dated 28th August, 1997 directed the concerned Officer to remain present along with his entire record. 6. The Department of Revenue again sent a letter on 27th October, 1 respondent No. 2- Collector herein directing him to take immediate steps is subject-matter of regrant of lands to the petitioners and submit a com report to it. The Collector-respondent No. 2 herein requested communication letter dated 9th January, 1998 seeking specific direction regrant of lands to the petitioners. As respondent No.2 did not comply instructions given by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the petitioners had filed Petition No. 5577 of 1998 in this Court for a direction that respondent should comply with the directions of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. A Division court by an orderly dated 10th November, 1998 directed respondent Nos. As respondent No.2 did not comply instructions given by respondent Nos. 1 and 3, the petitioners had filed Petition No. 5577 of 1998 in this Court for a direction that respondent should comply with the directions of respondent Nos. 1 and 3. A Division court by an orderly dated 10th November, 1998 directed respondent Nos. 1 an 3 vide letter dated 25th July,1996. Since there was no compliance , another petition Since the petition No. 3413 of 1999 court by an order dated 10th November, 1998 directed respondent No.2 only with the directions given by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 vide letter dated y, 1996. Since there was no compliance, another petition was filed being petition No. 3413 of 1999 for regrant of said lands and the respondents to dispossess the petitioners from the suit lands. A Division Bench of on 17th July, 2000 was pleased to direct the State Government to r the report of the Collector and take a decision with regard to the on of the petitioners for regrant of lands within a period of two months date of the order. However, no action was taken by the respondents in compliance of the said order of the High Court. 7 In the meanwhile, on 9th July, 2002 a Government Resolution was by the Department of Revenue and Forests pertaining to the laying down rules with regard to regrant of inam/vatan lands. The said rules in h-2 of the resolution clarified that no permission is required for regrant of Class-two. In view thereof, the petitioners approached the respondents for grant. Instead of regranting a land, the Revenue Minister, by his order dated Octomber, 2002 rejected the application of the petitioners for regrant. . 8. The learned Counsel Mr. Karandikar, who is appearing on behalf of the petitioner strongly contended that the Hon ble Revenue Minister has totally not red the provisions of section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue which reads as under :- .. "20(2) Whether any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person as against the Government, it shall be lawful for the Collector or a survey officer, after formal inquiry of which due notice has been given, to pass an order deciding the claim." 9. "20(2) Whether any property or any right in or over any property is claimed by or on behalf of the Government or by any person as against the Government, it shall be lawful for the Collector or a survey officer, after formal inquiry of which due notice has been given, to pass an order deciding the claim." 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contended that already, the provisional Officer, by his communication dated 19th March, 1996 has came to conclusion that the lands at Survey Nos. 138 and 154 at village Nandgaon belongs to the ancestors of the petitioners and as such, they are to be restored to the petitioners as per the provisions of the Mumbai Territories Miscellaneous Vatan Abolition Act, 1955. Under these facts circumstances of the case, the learned Counsel for the petitioners prays that respondent be remanded back to the Honble Minister for Revenue being respondent No.1 herein to pass an appropriate order afresh after considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case especially, the provisions of the 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. 10. The learned A.G.P. appearing for the respondents also could not e that the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Maval Sub Division, Maval Pune holds that the petitioners are entitled for the restoration of the lands, holding an inquiry under section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue,1966. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the ed order dated 17th October, 2002 stands quashed and set aside and the is remanded back to the Hon ble Revenue Minister-respondent No.1 to enable him to pass an appropriate reasoned order after hearing the petitioners and considering all the material and also the provisions of section of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The entire exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of six months from today. Ru accordingly made absolute, however with no order as to costs. Order accordingly