Bombay High Court
Govardhan S/O. Mahadeo Meshram vs State Of Maharashtra, Dept. Of ... on 4 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
12--wp-2714-21.odt
1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2021
Govardhan Mahadeo Meshram
-Vs-
State of Maharashtra and ors.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Rani Nitnaware, counsel for the petitioner.
Ms.N.P.Mehta, A.G.P for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE &
ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 03.08.2021.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is claiming that he is an ex-serviceman
and also landless labourer and a person belonging to
scheduled caste and therefore, he is entitled to allotment of E-
class land, which is a Gairan land on lease.
3. Such case of the petitioner is not covered by the ratio
of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and ors. , reported
in (2011) 11 SCC 396 and does also not fall in the exceptions
carved out in Section 22A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966. In order to avail of the protection granted to
certain categories of persons as laid down in the case of
Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab (supra), the
claimant must be a person, who has already been granted lease
under some Government Notification and that such lease must
Kavita
12--wp-2714-21.odt
be granted to him on the ground that he is a landless labourer
or a member of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The
other exception made in the case of Jagpal Singh and others v.
State of Punjab (supra) is that of a lease already granted to a
school or dispensary or any other public utility.
4. In the present case, basically no lease of E-class land
has been granted to the petitioner, and if this is so, the
question of considering the claim of the petitioner on the
touch stone of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab
(supra) would not arise. This is more so because Section 22A
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 bars the
diversion of E-class land for any private use. There is no
dispute about the fact that the allotment of E-class land has
been claimed by the petitioner for private use.
5. This is also the view taken by us in a recent judgment
delivered in a bunch of Writ Petition Nos.2552, 2553, 2555
and 2557 of 2021, decided on 26/07/2021. There is no
substance in the petition, the petition stands summarily
dismissed. No costs.
(ANIL S. KILOR,J) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)
Kavita
