Pramod Ramesh Kharat And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 638 Bom

                                                                        980_WP1182515.odt


         
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 11825 OF 2015

1.  Pramod Ramesh Kharat
     Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculturist,

2.  Rajesh Ramesh Kharat
     Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculturist,

3.  Manisha Satyanand Kasab
     Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculturist,

4.  Nishidini Piter Dongerdive
     Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculturist,

5.  Sunita Ramesh Kharat
     Age: Adult, Occu.: Agriculturist,

     All above Indian Inhabitants
     Represented through their
     Constituted Attorney
     Sandip Sopan Navle
     Age: 35 years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
     Residing at Bhenda, Tal: Nevasa,
     Dist. Ahmednagar.                                      ..PETITIONERS

                  VERSUS

1.  State of Maharashtra
     Through its Revenue Department
     having its Office at Mantralaya,
     Bombay - 400 032.

2.  The Divisional Commissioner, Nashik,
     Having his office at Nashik Road - 422 101.

3.  The Collector of Ahmednagar
     Having his office at Ahmednagar.

                                           1   /  4




            ::: Uploaded on - 10/03/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2017 01:05:56 :::
                                                                             980_WP1182515.odt


4.  Tehsildar of Nevasa, Ahmednagar
     Having his office at Ahmednagar.                           ..RESPONDENTS

                                      ....
Mr. V.J. Dixit, Senior Advocate h/f Mr. K.C. Sant, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.R. Yadav - Lonikar, A.G.P. for respondent - State.
                                      ....

                                                CORAM :  S.B. SHUKRE, J.

DATED : 09th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by

consent of both parties.

2. Mr. Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners has placed on

record Government Resolution dated 02 nd December, 2016. Same is taken

on record accordingly and marked as 'X' for identification. He submits that

after Appeal No. 1211 of 2015 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Minister on 14 th

August, 2015, the Government has spelt out the new policy for dealing with

the lands which have been properly allotted to the allottees and shown as

forest lands. He submits that the petitioners should be given an opportunity

for pleading their case for favourable decision in terms of Government

Resolution dated 02nd December, 2016.

3. Learned A.G.P. submits that unless and until the forest land is

dereserved, which can be done with the approval of the Central

2 / 4

980_WP1182515.odt

Government, no decision can be taken by the State Government in this

regard.

4. The Government Resolution dated 02nd December, 2016 indeed

shows that there has been change in the policy of the Government and now

the Government has thought of dealing with forest lands with a different

approach, that is to say, by distinguishing between those forest lands on

which encroachment has been made and those forest lands which have been

properly allotted by revenue authorities in the past. This policy further

shows that in case of those lands which have been properly allotted, the

authority mentioned in the Government Resolution is required to prepare a

list of such lands and submit the same to the Government for taking proper

decision.

5. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are

allottees of the lands shown as forest lands in the revenue record under the

order passed by Tahsildar on 13th October, 1976. It is also not in dispute

that the petitioners are not the encroachers upon the land bearing Gut No.

68/2, rather they are the proper allottees of these lands. If during pendency

of any proceeding, there is any change in Government policy, reasonable

expectation of law would be that the the land holders, who are the proper

allottees, would also be entitled to get benefit of change in policy.

3 / 4

980_WP1182515.odt

6. In this view of the matter, it is necessary that the orders dated

14th August, 2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister and 08 th August, 2014

passed by the Commissioner are required to be quashed and set aside.

7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Impugned orders are hereby

quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector for

considering it afresh in accordance with Government Resolution dated 02 nd

December, 2016. The Collector shall consider whether the lands of the

petitioners could be dealt with in terms of paragraph no.3 of the

Government Resolution dated 02 nd December, 2016 and if so, he shall

include the lands in the list to be forwarded to the Government for

appropriate decision, with necessary recommendations. If there is any other

Government Resolution applicable to the case of petitioners, same shall also

be considered for the purpose of deciding the prayer of petitioners. Liberty

to submit fresh representation is granted. All questions are kept open. Rule

is made absolute in those terms. No costs.

( S.B. SHUKRE, J. ) SSD

4 / 4