Bombay High Court
Jijabrao Shankarrao Naik And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 1 April, 2016
Bench: A.V. Nirgude
wp6777-15
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6777 OF 2015
1] Shri Jijabrao Shankarao Naik
Age 69 years,
2] Gunwantrao Shankarao Naik
Deceased
2A] Prashant G Naik
2B]
3]
Prajakt G Naik
Hambirrao Shankar Naik
Age 65 years
4] Prataprao Shankarao Naik
Age 63 years
5] Nandkumar Shankarao Naik
Deceased
5A] Jaisingh N Naik
6] Sanjay Shankarao Naik
Age 59 years
7] Ajay Shankarao Naik
Age 57 years
Occupation : Agriculturists
R/o Belapur, Tal. Shrirampur
Dist.Ahmednagar. ... PETITIONERS
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2] The Collector,Ahmednagar
Dist.Ahmednagar
3] Sub Divisional Officer,
Pathardi,
Taluka Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar
4] Tahsildar, Shrirampur,
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:36:25 :::
wp6777-15
-2-
Tal. Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar
5] The Maharashtra State Farming Corporation
Through its Managing Director
R/o 270, Bhamburda, Next to Passport office
Opposite - Symbiosis College,
Senapati Bapat Road,
Pune-01. .. RESPONDENTS
....
Mr.Sanket S. Kulkarni, Adv. For petitioners
Mr.P.S.Patil,AGP for respondents/State
...
ig CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE &
V.L.ACHLIYA,JJ.
DATED : 1ST APRIL,2016
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER V.L.ACHLIYA,J.) :-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of parties,
Petition is heard finally at admission stage.
2] At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that petitioners are not claiming relief except relief claimed by way of
prayer clause "C" which in turn refers to directions to be issued to the
respondents to reconsider the application dated 6/9/2014 filed by the
petitioners seeking return of the land.
3] In view of the limited relief claimed, to decide afresh the
representation dated 6/9/2014 it is not necessary to discuss in detail
the facts leading to filing of the petition. In nutshell, it is the case of
the petitioners that their late father Shri Shankar Bapuji Naik was the
wp6777-15
owner of land bearing Gat No.96 Old Survey No.44/4 admeasuring 9
Acres and 5 Gunthas at village Belapur Bk, Taluka Shrirampur,
Dist.Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the said land). By lease
deed executed on 1/7/1955 deceased Shankar Naik had given said
land on lease to Maharashtra Sugar Mills the erstwhile Industrial
Undertaking. Since the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 were also made applicable to
land belonging to industrial undertaking, the surplus land belonging
to said sugar mill vests with State Government. The State
Government granted said land to The Maharashtra State Farming
Corporation, Pune-respondent no.5 for the purpose of cultivation
being a surplus land in exercise of powers under Section 28-1AA of
said Act. Subsequently, the Government has amended Section 28-1
AA. By virtue of the amended provisions, the Government has
acquired the power to grant land to those persons who had
previously leased their lands to the Undertaking and required land for
personal cultivation to the extent of ceiling area or the area of land
leased by such persons to the Undertaking whichever is less.
4] Petitioners being the legal heirs of Shankar Naik submitted an
application seeking grant of said land. Respondents have refused to
entertain the request made by the petitioners on the ground that the
deceased father of the petitioners was holding the land in excess
than the limit provided under the said Act of 1961 and therefore, they
are not entitled for grant of the land. Being aggrieved by the
communication dated 21/2/2015, whereby the petitioners were
advised to approach the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, if they are
not satisfied with the reasons communicated by Additional Collector,
Ahmednagar, the petitioners have approached this Court.
5] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned
wp6777-15
AGP appearing for the State and perused the affidavit in reply and
documents referred and relied by respondents no.1 to 4 as well as
the rejoinder filed by the petitioners.
6] At the cost of repeatition, the learned counsel for the
petitioners has argued that the father of the petitioners was not
holding the land in excess of the ceiling area. Vide representation
dated 6/9/2014, the petitioners have responded to communication
dated 6/6/2014 made by the Additional Collector, Ahmednagar to the
committee/tribunal constituted for adjudicating the claims for the
return of the land. However, the Additional Collector has refused to
entertain the representation and advised the petitioners to approach
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal if not satisfied with the reasons
mentioned in the communication dated 6/6/2014. Mr.Kulkarni,
learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot entertain appeal against such
order. He has further submitted that the Maharashtra Agricultural
Farming Corporation vide their letter dated 28/9/2013,
communicated to petitioner that as per their record, there is no
entry/note recorded that the deceased father of the petitioner was
holding land in excess of ceiling area. He has submitted that the
Additional Collector has communicated its decision to
Committee/Tribunal without giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners. In this background, the learned counsel has urged to
direct the respondent no.2 to consider the representation of the
petitioners and to decide the same.
7] On behalf of the respondents no.1 to 4, one Kishor Ambadas
Kadam, Tahsildar, Shrirampur, Dist.Ahmednagar has filed reply. In
nutshell, it is the say of respondents that the deceased father of the
petitioners was holding the land excess than the ceiling area as
wp6777-15
provided under the Act of 1961. The Additional Collector,
Ahmednagar made enquiry into the matter. Petitioners are claiming
grant of land under the presumption that their deceased father was
holding land below the prescribed limit. However, as per their record,
there is entry that he was holding the land in excess than the ceiling
area, and as the original lessee was not entitled for the grant of the
land, the petitioners cannot claim the grant of land. It is further stated
that the order dated 6/6/2014 has been passed after due opportunity
of hearing to the petitioners. Since the petitioners were not satisfied
with the order passed, and made the representation dated 6/9/2014
the petitioners were advised to approach the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, if not satisfied with the order passed by respondent no.2. It
is therefore, the say of respondents no.1 to 4 that as per provisions
of Section 28-1AA of the Act of 1961, the petitioners are not entitled
for the return of the land which is subject matter of the petition.
8] We have thoroughly considered the submissions advanced in
the light of rival contentions. There appears to be substance in the
say of the respondents that deceased father of the petitioners was
holding land in excess than the limit provided under the Act of 1961.
In the representation dated 6/9/2014, the petitioners themselves
have stated that there was excess land than the ceiling area.
However, according to them that excess land was surrendered by
their father and same was also distributed by the Government way
back in the year 1970. Thus, the fact that the deceased father of the
petitioners was holding land in excess of the ceiling area is not in
dispute. However, it is the case of petitioners that at the relevant
time i.e. in the year 1975, the deceased father of the petitioners was
not holding land in excess than the ceiling area. In view of this, they
are entitled to seek the grant of the land as their holding in the year
1975 was not in excess than the ceiling limit. According to the
wp6777-15
petitioners, this aspect has not been examined by the Additional
Collector.
9] Having regard to the submissions advanced, we are of the
view that respondent no.2 should consider the representation dated
6/9/2014 on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clause [C]. The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the
representation dated 6/9/2014 (Exh.E to the Petition) within six
months from the date of communication of the order. We further
grant liberty to the petitioners to submit additional documents in
support of representation. Needless to observe that the respondent
no.2 shall decide the representation after giving due opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent no.5.
Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.
(V.L.ACHLIYA,J.) (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.)
umg/
