Bombay High Court
Vijay S/O Deosingh Rathod And ... vs Surplus Land Determination ... on 31 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp746.15+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 746 OF 2015
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2060 OF 2015
W.P.NO. 746/2015.
1. Vijay S/o. Deosingh Rathod,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation :
Cultivator.
2. Rajesh S/o. Deosingh Rathod,
Aged about 38 years, Occupation:
Cultivator.
Both R/o. Village Dagadthar,
Tq. Mahagaon (Old Tq. Pusad)
District : Yavatmal.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Surplus Land Determination Tribunal,
Pusad Block, Tq. Pusad, District :
Yavatmal.
2. The Tahsildar, Mahagaon, Tq.Mahagaon,
District : Yavatmal.
3. Manikrao S/o. Anandrao Naik,
Aged about Major, Occupation :
Cultivator,
4. Sau. Shobhabai W/o.Manikrao Naik,
Aged about Major, Occupation: Cultivator,
5. Pravin S/o.Manikrao Naik,
Aged about Major, Occupation :Cultivator,
Nos. 3 to 5 R/o. Shivaji Ward, Near Shivaji Statute,
Above Krishna Medical Stores, Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District : Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 00:42:39 :::
Judgment 2 wp746.15+1.odt
6. Sau. Jyotsana Babarao Dhere alias
Ku. Jyotsana Manikrao Naik, Aged
Adult, Occupation: Household,
R/o. C-11, Reliance Company,
Dahanu Road, Dahanu, Tah.Dahanu,
District : Thane (M.S.)
7. The learned Member of Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
WITH
W.P.NO.2060/2015.
1. Vijay S/o. Deosingh Rathod,
Aged about 40 years, Occupation :
Cultivator.
2. Rajesh S/o. Deosingh Rathod,
Aged about 38 years,Occupation:
Cultivator.
Both R/o. Village Dagadthar,
Tq. Mahagaon (Old Tq. Pusad)
District : Yavatmal.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
1. Surplus Land Determination Tribunal,
Pusad Block, Tq. Pusad, District :
Yavatmal.
2. The Tahsildar, Mahagaon, Tq.Mahagaon,
District : Yavatmal.
3. Manikrao S/o. Anandrao Naik,
Aged about 68 years, Occupation:Agriculturist,
4. Sau. Shobhabai W/o.Manikrao Naik,
Aged about 60 years, Occupation: Housewife,
::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2017 00:42:39 :::
Judgment 3 wp746.15+1.odt
5. Pravin S/o.Manikrao Naik,
Aged about 48 years, Occupation:Agriculturist,
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are resident of
Shivaji Ward, Near Shivaji Statute,
Above Krishna Medical Stores, Pusad,
Tah. Pusad, District : Yavatmal.
6. Sau. Jyotsana Babarao Tehare Alias
Ku. Jyotsana Manikrao Naik, Aged
49 years, Occupation: Household,
R/o. C-11, Reliance Company,
Dahanu Road, Dahanu, Tah.Dahanu,
District : Thane (M.S.)
7. The learned Member of Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri R.L.Khapre, Advocate a/a Shri S.U.Nemade, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri Neeraj Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 7.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 31, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These two petitions are being disposed by common judgment as
the same issues are involved in both the writ petitions.
2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
3. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Judgment 4 wp746.15+1.odt
4. The learned advocates for the petitioners in both these petitions
have made various submissions. One of the submission is that the original
land holders (respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in W.P. No.746/2015 and respondent
Nos. 3 to 6 in W.P. No.2060/2015) are having extensive agricultural lands
owned by them and the details of these lands were brought on record before
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the applications dated 7 th September,
2010 (copies of which are placed on record at page No.117 in W.P.
No.746/2015 and page No.75 in W.P.No.2060/2015), however, the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has not considered these relevant facts. It is
submitted that the original landholders, while submitting the return/
retention form, have suppressed the fact that they own extensive agricultural
lands.
5. The learned A.G.P. has not disputed that the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal has not considered the contention of the petitioners that the
extensive agricultural lands are owned by the original landholders.
6. Though notice for final disposal is served, as it happens, the
respondent Nos.3 to 6 in both the writ petitions have opted to stay out of the
proceedings, resultantly there is no assistance from the respondent Nos.
3 to 6.
Judgment 5 wp746.15+1.odt
7. The learned advocates for the petitioners have submitted that the
names of the original landholders continued as owners in the revenue
records and relying on the entries in the revenue records they have bonafide
purchased the agricultural lands which now are being taken as surplus land.
The learned A.G.P. submitted that the sale-deeds executed in
favour of the present petitioners are only to defeat the object of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
8. Be that as it may, the grievance made by the petitioners that the
original landholders are having extensive lands, details of which are given in
the above referred applications, will have to be considered by some authority
and in the present case it should be by the Surplus Land Determination
Tribunal.
9. In the facts of the case, in my view, the following order will
sub-serve the ends of justice :
i. The impugned judgment and orders are set aside.
ii. The matter is remitted to the Surplus Land
Determination Tribunal, Pusad, District : Yavatmal.
iii. The petitioners in both these writ petitions shall appear
before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Pusad on 27 th
November, 2017 at 11.00 a.m.
Judgment 6 wp746.15+1.odt
iv. If the petitioners desire, they may file their affidavit/
affidavits along with documents to substantiate their claim that
the original landholders are having extensive agricultural lands
which can be declared as surplus land.
v. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal shall issue
notice to the original landholders.
vi. After reasonable time is given to the original land
holders to file their affidavit/ affidavits along with documents
on record, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal shall
dispose the proceedings till 29th January, 2018. If the notice/
notices is / are not served on the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 till
20th November, 2017, the notice/ notices of the Respondent
Nos. 3 to 6 shall be served by paper publication in 2 local
newspapers and the expenses shall be recovered from the
respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
vii. The petitioners shall send copy of this judgment to the
respondent Nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 separately by Speed Post
Acknowledgment Due and file affidavit of compliance on record
of these petitions till 15th November, 2017.
viii. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal shall proceed
with the matter if the petitioners or the original landholders fail
to co-operate.
ix. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal shall dispose
the matter till 29th January, 2018.
Judgment 7 wp746.15+1.odt
x. As recorded above, the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in both
these petitions have tactically opted to remain out of the
proceedings because of which the assistance expected from
them is not received by the Court while deciding the writ
petitions.
As the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in both these petitions
have not assisted the Court, and the State Government
submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 are in collusion and
are frustrating / protracting the proceedings under the Act and
illegally retaining possession of the agricultural lands, the
respondent Nos. 3 to 6 in both these writ petitions shall pay
costs of Rs.Two Lakhs to the State Government and produce
receipt of it on record of this writ petition till 30 th November,
2017.
Both the writ petitions are disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE
RRaut..
