Shalik S/O Namdeorao Gudhe vs State Of Maha. Thr. Collector, ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 1092 Bom

47-SA-634-17                                                                                      1/4


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          SECOND APPEAL NO.634 OF 2017


Shalik s/o Namdeorao Gudhe, 
Aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculturist, 
R/o Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, 
Dist. Yavatmal.                                                       ... Appellant. 

-vs- 

1.  State of Maharashtra,
     Through Collector, Yavatmal, 
     and President Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gayakwad
     Sabalikaran wa Swabhimani Yojana, 
     Yavatmal, Tq. And District : Yavatmal. 

2.  The District Social Welfare Officer,
     Yavatmal. 

3.  Tahasildar, Ghatanji,
     Tq. and District Yavatmal.  

4.  Tukaram s/o Tanbaji Bhagat,
     Aged Major, Occupation Not known, 
     R/o Maregaon, Tq. Ghatanji, 
     District Yavatmal.                                               ... Respondents.  


Shri V. D. Awachat, Advocate for appellant.  
Ms Geeta Tiwari, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 
Shri P. S. Chawhan, Advocate for respondent No.4. 


                                 CORAM  :  A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : January 29, 2018.

Oral Judgment :

The appellant is the original plaintiff who is aggrieved by the

47-SA-634-17 2/4

judgment of the trial Court as confirmed by the first appellate Court

dismissing his suit seeking a declaration that allotment of land bearing

Survey No.25 was after following due process of law and hence the plaintiff

had right to the same.

2. According to the plaintiff, the respondent No.1 had launched a

scheme by name Karmaveer Dadasaheb Gaikwad Sabalikaran Wa

Swabhimani Yojna. As per this scheme land was sought to be allotted for

cultivation to the landless agriculture labourers. The plaintiff applied for

allotment of land and the same was so allotted as per order dated

21/07/2005. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 however conducted an inquiry into

the matter. As the plaintiff learnt that the allotment was to be cancelled, the

suit came to be filed.

3. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 in their written statement took the

stand that though the land was alloted to the plaintiff, it was found that

there was other land standing in the name of the plaintiff's mother and

therefore his name was cancelled from the list of allottees. After holding a

fresh process, the land was allotted to defendant No.4. The defendant No.4

also filed his written statement and opposed the suit.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record held that

47-SA-634-17 3/4

the plaintiff did not fulfill necessary conditions that were required by the

Scheme dated 02/06/2004. The appellate Court has confirmed this finding.

5. Shri V. D. Awachat, learned counsel for the appellant submitted

that both the Courts committed an error in holding that the plaintiff was not

eligible to allotment of the land in question. The plaintiff was a mere

landless labourer and in view of relinquishment deed dated 12/07/2005,

there was no property standing in his name. All necessary requirements

were complied with and the land was allotted on 21/07/2005. He therefore

submitted that cancellation of this allotment was not justifiable.

6. Ms Geeta Tiwari, learned Additional Government Pleader for

respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Shri P. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for

respondent No.4 supported the impugned judgment. According to them both

the Courts have found that the plaintiff was not entitled for allotment. The

relinquishment deed was not duly registered and the mother of the plaintiff

was the owner of land at village Kumbhari. The cancellation of allotment

was therefore proper.

7. After hearing the respective counsel I find that relinquishment

deed on which the plaintiff seeks to rely is not duly registered. In absence of

the same, no aid of the said relinquishment deed could be taken in law. The

47-SA-634-17 4/4

defendant Nos.3 and 4 after due enquiry found that as per the documents at

Exhibits-62 and 64 Gat No.86 was standing in the name of the plaintiff's

mother. It was thus found that the plaintiff did not satisfy the requirements

of the Scheme and hence the allotment on 21/07/2005 was liable to be

cancelled.

8. Both the Courts have considered the relevant aspects of the matter

and I do not find that they committed any error by dismissing the suit.

Second Appeal is therefore dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Asmita