The Bombay High dismissed the writ petition seeking dismissal of the notification dated 07-11-2017, which carved out Joshi Vasti from village Limpangaon and created a separate revenue village and Gram Panchayat. A division bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice Mangesh S. Patil and S.G. Chapalgaonkar held that the Appellate Court cannot sit in the appeal and appreciate the minor procedural lapses caused during the process undertaken by competent authority towards creating a separate revenue village. This Court is concerned with only the substantive compliance of the provisions keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved which duly held in the present case.
Brief Facts:
The case of the Petitioner was that the Government of Maharashtra, vide order dated 31-12-1989, allotted the land, which is a part of the revenue village, Limpangion and known as Joshi Vasti, for rehabilitation of 179 persons belonging to the backward class. The respondent No. 8 moved an application dated 30-01-2015 to carve out Joshi Vasti from village Limpangaon and to create a revenue village and Gram Panchayat. The respondent No. 4 issued a notification dated 07-11-2017 in tune with section 4(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ("the Code"), thereby calling upon objections in requisite format from the general public till 23-11-2017. The objection was raised that no such publication was made till 06-12-2017. The hearing of all stakeholders was conducted, during which the written objections submitted by the stakeholders were discussed.
In this petition, the Petitioner seeked a declaration that the impugned notification dated 07-11-2017 issued by respondent No. 4, i.e. the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of Section 4 of the Code and Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that notification dated 07-11-2017 issued under Section 4 of the Code was not given publicity in accordance with the law. The contention of the learned Counsel was that various objections were raised by the public at large, Sugar Factory and the village panchayat, to create Joshi Vasti as a separate revenue village. However, those objections were not considered, which makes the action on the Respondents' part arbitrary and illegal.
The Counsel further submitted that the land to the extent of 82 acres had been allotted to Shrigonda Sugar Factory, and de-forestation was done on 40 acres of land. The rest of the land forms a part of the forest. Therefore, the Forest Act 1980 provisions apply to the land. The Petitioner's contention was that without objection from the Central Government, the action proposed in terms of section 4(1) of the Code for carving out separate land revenue area could not have been undertaken.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The learned Counsel for the Respondent contended that in view of the circular dated 08-08-1969, the powers that vest with the State Government under Section 4(1) of the Code were delegated to the Collector. It was a further contention of the respondents that the respondent No. 4, after considering the relevant material, issued a provisional notification dated 07-11-2017 for carving out Joshi Vasti as a new revenue village. The objections were called from the public at large upto 28-11-2017. The respondent No. 5 offered the opportunity for group hearing to all stakeholders, but all objections were rejected by the order dated 23-08-2018.
Observations of the Court:
This Court finds that the basic objective behind the requirement of publication of draft notification is to provide an opportunity to the affected persons from the revenue area proposed to be divided into separate revenue village. In view of this Court, the publication of draft notification required under section 4 of the Code had been made in accordance with the law. The reasoning of the bench was that the draft notification had reached the public at large, and the objections to intended action under such notification were raised and considered. In such a scenario, this Court, while sitting in the appeal, cannot appreciate the minor procedural lapses caused during the process undertaken by competent authority towards creating a separate revenue village. The Court concerns with the substantive compliance of the provisions keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved to which they were satisfied that there is a compliance of requirements indicated under section 4 of the Code.
In regard to the contention of this Court on the applicability of the provisions of the Forest Act, this Court noted that no other material was brought to the notice of this Court to indicate that any provisions of the Forest Act or the Rules had impeded the action taken by the Respondent under the impugned notification. Therefore, they were not inclined to accept the contentions of the Petitioner in this regard.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the present writ petition and declined to quash the impugned notification.
Case Title: Masudeo vs State of Maharashtra and others
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Mangesh S. Patil and S.G. Chapalgaonkar
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 11923 OF 2018
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Rahul A. Tambe
Advocate for the Respondents: Mrs M.A. Deshpande and Mr G.D. Jain
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
