Eknath Mahadeorao Jadhav vs State Of Mah. And 2 Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2140 Bom

     Judgment.                                                         wp1098.05

                                            1




                                                                                 
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                         
                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                        
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1098 OF 2005.


     Eknath Mahadeorao Jadhav,




                                            
     Aged Major, Ex-Serviceman,
     Resident of Lala Oli, Kamptee,
                             
     Tahsil Kamptee, District Nagpur.                    ..... PETITIONER.
                            
                                        VERSUS 


     1. State of Maharashtra,
     through its Secretary,
      


     Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
   



     Mumbai - 400 032.

     2.The Collector, Nagpur,
     Tahsil Nagpur, District Nagpur.





     3.The Tahsildar, Kamptee,
     Taluk Kamptee, District Nagpur.                ..... RESPONDENTS.


                                --------------------------

None for the Petitioner.

Shri D.M. Kale, A.G.P. for Respondents.

--------------------------

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & P. N. DESHMUKH , J J.

                                   DATE         :  MAY 02, 2016.





      Judgment.                                                          wp1098.05






                                                                                  
                                                         

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.)

The matter was called out in the first half and an

adjournment was requested on behalf of Advocate Shri Lambat.

The matter was called out on 29.04.2016, but, none appeared

for the petitioner on both the occasions, hence, we adjourned

the matter as part heard for today. Therefore, we had rejected

the request.

2. The petitioner an Ex-Military personnel was given

surplus land declared under the Maharashtra Agricultural

Lands (Ceiling on Holding) Act, 1961 and he wanted to sell it

to one Devendrasingh Shankarsingh Thakur. As required by

law, he sought previous permission and by order dated

15.05.2000 the Additional Collector, Nagpur after recording

statement of Shri Devendra, granted that permission, subject to

certain conditions. The petitioner thereafter sold the land to

one Shri Anil Markandeo Padole. In this sale deed executed on

10.10.2005, Shri Devendrasingh Thakur is shown as consenting

Judgment. wp1098.05

party. After this sale, an application was moved for mutating

name of purchaser Shri Padole on 10.10.2005 itself. By an

affidavit the present petitioner submitted that Shri

Devendrasingh was not in a position to purchase the land

because of his bad financial condition, and had given no

objection for its sale to anybody else. He therefore, sought

necessary action and on 10.12.2004 he also moved the Chief

Secretary of Revenue and Forest Department, State of

Maharashtra, submitting that an Ex-military person was being

given permission to sale after he reached age of 65 years, after

they pay 50% of 75% of the sale consideration. He therefore,

sought necessary guidance from the Government of

Maharashtra in this respect. The Tahsildar, Kamptee, on

21.12.2004 informed the petitioner that the sale deed executed

in favour of Shri Padole, was without obtaining permission,

and thereafter, the present petition has been filed.

3. Learned A.G.P. has submitted that as per the

procedure, statement of purchaser is required to be recorded,

and no such statement of Shri Padole has been recorded, as no

Judgment. wp1098.05

previous permission to sell the land to him was sought. He

further submits that the order dated 12.05.2000, could not

have been used after more than 4 years i.e. on 10.10.2015, to

execute the sale deed in favour of a third person.

4. Agricultural land declared surplus under said Ceiling

Law is distributed to land less persons for their survival. The

petitioner who is an ex-military personnel was given

preference in the process. He wanted to sell that land and

therefore, subject to certain conditions and after verifying the

bonafides of the purchaser, permission was given, but, this

permission was not used by him till 10.10.2004.

5. Moreover the inability of Shri Devendrasingh to

purchase, was never pointed out to the respondents, and no

permission to sell the land to Shri Padole was obtained.

Hence, the bonafides of Shri Padole could not be examined.

6. In this situation, it is apparent that no fault can be

found with the impugned order.

Judgment. wp1098.05

7. Writ Petition is without any merits, the same is

accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.

                            JUDGE                                  JUDGE




                                              
     Rgd.