Bombay High Court
Dadarao Suryabhan Gawai vs The State Of Maharashtra & 2 Others on 5 December, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
0512WP1353.2000-Judgment 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2000
PETITIONER :- Dadarao S/o Suyabhan Gawai, age major,
r/o Rajur, Tq. Motala, Dist. Buldana.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its
ig Secretary, Deptt. Of Revenue, Mantralaya,
Mumbai-32.
2. The Additional Commissioner, Amravati
Divn., Amravati.
3. Smt.Shantabai Dinkar Gawai, Age major,
r/o Rajur, Tq. Motala, Dist. Buldana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.M.Puranik, counsel for the petitioner.
Mrs.G.Tiwari, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 05.12.2016
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt. Vasanti A Naik, J.)
By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the
orders of the authorities under the Maharashtra Revenue Code, thereby
rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of the plot and
confirming the order of allotment in favour of the respondent No.3.
0512WP1353.2000-Judgment 2/3
2. Shri Prunaik, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
submitted that the plot ought to have allotted in favour of the
petitioner, as the petitioner is an ex-serviceman. It is stated that the the
genuine claim of the petitioner was ignored while allotting the plot in
favour of the respondent No.3. It is stated that the orders of the
authorities are illegal and are liable to be set aside.
3. Mrs. Tiwari, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, states that the impugned
orders cannot be interfered with, in exercise of the writ jurisdiction
inasmuch as a finding of fact has been recorded by all the authorities
that the petitioner was not entitled to the plot, as the father of the
petitioner was allotted two plots in the same village and the respondent
No.3 was allotted the plot in the year 1990, after making a due enquiry
in respect of her entitlement to the same. It is stated that by a challan
dated 10/08/1990, the occupancy price of the plot was paid by the
respondent No.3 and the plot was allotted to her.
4. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears
that there is hardly any scope for interference with the concurrent
orders of the authorities holding that the petitioner did not make out a
case for the allotment of the plot in his favour. Merely because the
petitioner was an ex-serviceman, the petitioner would not have been
entitled to the allotment of the plot that was allotted to the respondent
No.3, as the father of the petitioner was alloted two plots in the same
0512WP1353.2000-Judgment 3/3
village. Moreover, the respondent No.3 had paid the occupancy price
for the allotment of the plot in the year 1990 and she is occupying the
said plot for more than 26 years.
5. Since the orders of the authorities are just and proper and
call for no interference, we dismiss the writ petition with no order as to
costs. Rule stands discharged.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
