Bombay High Court
Suresh S/O. Harlal Rathod vs The Govt. Of Maha. Dept. Of ... on 11 August, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
wp.1188.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
WRIT PETITION NO. 1188/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1189/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1190/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1191/2016
ig WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1192/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1193/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1194/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1195/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1196/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1197/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1198/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1199/2016
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1200/2016
1) WRIT PETITION NO.1188/2016
Kailash s/o Narayan Pachpor
Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
wp.1188.16
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Taluka level Committee
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
2) WRIT PETITION NO.1189/2016
Sheshrao s/o Namdev Deshmukh
Aged 72 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
wp.1188.16
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
3) WRIT PETITION NO.1190/2016
Suresh s/o Harlal Rathod
Aged 70 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
wp.1188.16
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
4) WRIT PETITION NO.1191/2016
Gajanan s/o suryabhan Jadhav
Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
wp.1188.16
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
5) WRIT PETITION NO.1192/2016
Ramesh s/o Meram Rathod
Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
wp.1188.16
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
6) WRIT PETITION NO.1193/2016
Punjabai w/o Vishnu Dhanore
Aged 55 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District: Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
7) WRIT PETITION NO.1194/2016
Subhash s/o Dattatray Pachpor
Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist
wp.1188.16
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
8) WRIT PETITION NO.1195/2016
Ramdas s/o Tulsiram Wankhede
Aged 63 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Deulgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
wp.1188.16
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
5)
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
9) WRIT PETITION NO.1196/2016
Vinod s/o sitaram Dhawale
Aged 38 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
wp.1188.16
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
10) WRIT PETITION NO.1197/2016
Gopal s/o Bhikaji Surve
Aged 29 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Jalgaon Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-12.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
wp.1188.16
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
11) WRIT PETITION NO.1198/2016
Kashibai w/o Madan Rathod
Aged 62 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Deulgaon-Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
wp.1188.16
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
12) WRIT PETITION NO.1199/2016
Sohan s/o Manikchand Jain
Aged 50 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Deulgaon- Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1)
The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-12.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
wp.1188.16
13) WRIT PETITION NO.2000/2016
Vasudev s/o Kisan Sardar
Aged 52 years, occu: Agriculturist
R/o Deulgaon- Sakarsha, Tah. Mehkar
District; Buldana. ..PETITIONER
v e r s u s
1) The Government of Maharashtra
Department of Cooperation
Marketing & Textile, Mantralaya,
Mumbai: Through its Secretary.
2) Commissioner of Cooperation and Registrar
Maharashtra State, Pune-1.
3) District Deputy Registrar of
Cooperative Societies, Buldana cum-
Member Secretary of District Level Committee formed
under Debt Relief Scheme.
4) Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Buldana cum Member Secretary of
Taluka level Committee
formed under Debt Relief Scheme.
5) Kailash s/o Radhakrushna Dhawale
R/o House No.55, Viraj Park
Malvihar, Tah. & Dist. Buldana. . .. ...RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for petitioner
Mrs.Kalyani Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.5.
............................................................................................................................
wp.1188.16
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
SMT . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
.
DATED : 11th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)
Since the issue involved in these Writ Petitions is similar and
since the order of the District Level Committee that was required to consider
the proposal of the petitioners, as per the Debt Relief Policy of the State
Government in Government Resolution, dated 10.4.2015, has rejected the
proposals of the petitioners, by a common order the petitions are heard
together and are decided by this common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The Petitions are heard
finally at the stage of admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for
the parties.
2. All the petitioners herein, had obtained loan from the money-
lenders that were holding a valid money-lending license. It is the case of the
petitioners that during the past few years, there were scanty rains in the State
of Maharashtra and the yield of the crops was marginal. Considering the
pitiable condition of the farmers and their inability to pay the debts, the
Government framed the Debt Relief Scheme as per the Government
Resolution dated 10.4.2015, thereby permitting the waiver of the loans to the
deserving farmers. It is the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid scheme
wp.1188.16
was framed, with a view to prevent suicides due to the heavy debts incurred
by the farmers and due to the marginal yield of the crops. As per clauses 3
and 4 of the Policy, a money-lender was required to sent the proposal for
waiver of the loan/debt of the farmers, like the petitioners to the Taluqa Level
Committee. It is not in dispute that in these cases, the money-lender with a
valid money-lending licence had submitted the proposals of the petitioners
herein, to the Taluqa Level Committee for grant of benefit of the Debt Relief
Scheme, to the petitioners. The Taluqa Level Committee recommended the
cases of the petitioners to the District Level Committee. The District Level
Committee, by a common order dated 30.12.2015, rejected the proposals of
all the petitioners, while accepting the proposals of some others.
3. Shri P.B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the District Level Committee has acted in a very high-handed manner in
rejecting the proposals of the petitioners while accepting the proposals of some
other farmers. It is submitted that the District Level Committee was required
to physically verify the fields and also verify whether the loan amount was
utilised, for the purpose for which it was secured. It is submitted that in the
case of several petitioners, the physical verification was admittedly not done
by the District Level Committee, as the petitioners were not present on the
spot. It is stated that no notice was issued to the petitioners asking the
petitioners to remain present on the field on a particular day and the
wp.1188.16
petitioners were therefore not expected to remain present at the time of the
visit of the members of the District level Committee. It is stated that the
physical verification ought to have been made in the presence of the
petitioners and some opportunity ought to have been granted to the
petitioners to explain that they had utilised the loan amount only for the
purpose for which the loan was secured. It is stated that in respect of some
other petitioners, the District Level Committee has rejected the claims on the
ground that the land of the said petitioners was small and the loan amount
was disproportionate to the extent of the land for which it was secured. It is
stated that though according to the District Level Committee the land of some
of the petitioners whose claims have been rejected on that ground were small
and the loan amount was more, the District Level Committee, by the very
same order has accepted the proposals of several other farmers whose lands
were equally small and the loan amount was the same or more. It is submitted
that since such an action on the part of the District Level Committee is clearly
arbitrary and discriminatory. It is submitted that the object of the Debt Relief
Scheme is to provide some succor to the farmers who were losing their lives in
view of the heavy debts that were incurred by them, the rejection of the
claims of two claimants on the ground that the money-lenders from whom
they had secured the loan were holding the money lending license within the
jurisdiction of Buldana District, the lands of these petitioners were situated
on the border-line of Buldana and Akola Districts is improper. It is stated that
wp.1188.16
the rejection of the claim of the two petitioners on this ground would be in
violation of the Debts Relief Policy, that is framed by the Government, as per
the Government Resolution, especially clause (3) of paragraph 1 of the policy.
It is stated that the entire approach on the part of the District Level
Committee in deciding the proposals of the petitioners and the other land
holders, is clearly arbitrary and it would be necessary in the circumstances of
the case, to direct the District Level Committee to reconsider the claims of the
petitioners in accordance with law. It is stated that if the benefit of the policy
could be given to the other land-holders whose lands were small and the loan
was large, the District Level Committee could not have accepted the proposal
of the similarly situated land-holders/ agriculturists whose lands were equally
small and loan amount was equal or more than the loan secured by some of
the petitioners. It is stated that though from the physical verification report in
respect of some of the petitioners, it is absolutely clear that the amount
secured by these petitioners towards loan was utilized for the purpose for
which it was secured, the District level Committee has rejected the proposals
of the petitioners. It is stated that it is not necessary under the Policy to
secure the loan only for the purpose of agriculture and if a farmer has
secured the loan for medical expenses, in view of the ailments suffered by him
or his family members, the District Level Committee is not entitled to reject
the proposal. It is stated that it is not stated in the policy of the Government
that loan waiver would be only in respect of the agricultural loan.
wp.1188.16
4. Mrs. K.R.Deshpande, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 4, supported the order of the
District Level Committee. It is submitted that though certain members that
were deputed by the District Level Committee went to the respective spots for
verification, since the petitioners were not present, the physical verification
could not be made. It is stated that as per the Policy, it would be necessary for
a claimant to have his landed property in the District of Buldana if the loan is
secured from a money-lender of Buldana. The learned Assistant Government
Pleader referred to the clarification, to the Government Resolution dated 18 th
June, 2015. It is, however, fairly admitted after perusing the chart
incorporated in the impugned order that the proposals of some of the debtors/
claimants whose lands were equally small and who have secured the loan to
the extent of the loan amount secured by some of the petitioners, their
proposals were accepted by the District Level Committee. It is stated that the
loan is required to be secured by a claimant under the policy, only for
agricultural purposes. It is however fairly admitted that the petitioners were
not informed about the date on which the physical verification was to be made
and that they should remain present on the spot on a particular day and
particular time. In the circumstances of the case, the learned Assistant
Government Pleader states that an appropriate order may be passed.
5. Mr. Gopal Mishra, the learned counsel for the respondents
wp.1188.16
-money lender submits that the respondent-money lenders are having a valid
money lending license that could be operated within the District of Buldana.
It is stated that the accounts of the money-lender were duly audited before
the scheme was floated by the State Government, by the Government
Resolution dated 10.4.2015. It is stated that after considering the individual
cases of the debtors, the money-lender had rightly submitted the proposal of
the said debtors including the petitioners to the Taluqa Level Committee, for
verification. It is stated that though the Taluqa Level Committee has rightly
recommended the cases of the petitioners, the District Level Committee has
illegally rejected the claims. The learned counsel states that a direction would
be necessary to the District Level Committee to consider the proposals of the
petitioners favourably and grant the benefit of the Debt Relief Scheme to
them.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal
of the impugned order, as also the Government Resolution, we find that the
District Level Committee has not properly conducted itself in deciding the
proposals of the petitioners and the other claimants. It appears that the
respondents/money-lenders had submitted the proposals of the petitioners
and several others to the Taluqa Level Committee for grant of benefit under
the Debt Relief Scheme, to them. The Taluqa Level Committee, on verifying
the facts in the case of each of the petitioners, had prepared a favourable
wp.1188.16
report and had forwarded the proposals of the petitioners to the District Level
Committee along with the proposal of the other claimants, for passing
appropriate orders and granting benefit to them. The members of the District
Level Committee have conducted the physical verification without informing
the concerned parties. It was not expected of the District Level Committee to
conduct the physical verification without any intimation to the concerned. It
was necessary for the District Level Committee to have informed the date on
which it intended to conduct the physical verification, so that each of the land
holders/debtors, who could be benefitted by the Scheme, could explain as
to how he has utilised the amount that was secured by him/her from the
money lenders, as loan. The Inspecting team went to the spot only once and
since some of the petitioners were not present on the spot, the physical
verification was not done in respect of those petitioners, at all. Though the
physical verification was done in respect of some of the petitioners and a
favourable report was submitted, that report is not considered by the District
Level Committee in the right perspective and the proposals of those petitioners
are also rejected. The District Level Committee rejected the proposals of some
of the petitioners, solely on the ground that the extent of the land owned and
possessed by them was small and the loan amount secured by them from the
bank was disproportionate to the extent of the land. While rejecting the claim
of some of the petitioners on this ground, the District Level Committee appears
to have accepted the claims of some others whose lands were equally small
wp.1188.16
and the loan was equal to the loan amount secured by the petitioners or was
even more. We find that the action on the part of the District Level Committee
in rejecting the proposals of some the petitioners on this ground, while
accepting the proposals of some other similarly situated debtors/claimants is
clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. We, prima facie, do not find anything
in the policy laid down in the Government Resolution dated 10.4.2015 that
provides that the agricultural field-property should be located only within
Buldana District. Even otherwise, it is the case of the two petitioners whose
proposal is rejected that their agricultural lands are situated just beyond the
boundary-line of Buldana District. It appears that the claims of the two
petitioners have been rejected on this count. Since the District Level
Committee has not done the physical verification in respect of some of the
petitioners, has not favourably considered the report as regards the physical
verification in respect of some petitioners in a proper manner and since the
claim of some petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the loan
amount was disproportionate to the extent of the land possessed by them,
while accepting the proposals of similarly situated debtors/claimants, the
impugned order is bad in law. In our view, it would be necessary, in the
circumstances of the case, to set aside the order of the District Level
Committee, so far as the petitioners are concerned and direct the District
Level Committee to reconsider their cases, in accordance with law. It would
not be proper to consider setting aside the entire order of the District Level
wp.1188.16
Committee as the claimants/debtors, whose proposals are accepted, are not
the parties to the petitions and the petitioners have also not made any
grievance against them.
7. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the Writ Petitions are partly
allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent no.3
District Level Committee is directed to reconsider the proposal of the
petitioners in accordance with law, within four months.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to
costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
wp.1188.16
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 16.08.2016.
wp.1188.16
