Ramnath S/O. Domaji Bilawane vs Ramdas S/O. Janglu Gajbhiye And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2735 Bom

                                                                         208.wp.278.2016.odt
 Judgment                                     1

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                               WRIT PETITION NO.278/2016

          Ramnath S/o Domaji Bilawane,
          Aged 50 yrs., Occ. Agriculturist,
          R/o. Chichal, Po. Chichal,
          Tah. Pauni, District - Bhandara.                   ..... PETITIONER

                                     // VERSUS //

 1)     Ramdas S/o Janglu Gajbhiye,
        Aged 70 yrs, Occ. Agriculturist,
        R/o. Malchi, Po. Gose, Tah. Pauni,
        District - Bhandara.

 2)     Rohidas S/o Jogo Goswami,
        Aged 60 yrs, Occu.: Agriculturist,

 3)     Taramati Jago Goswami @ Taramait
        Chokhoba Motghare,
        Aged about 50 yrs,
        R/o Bajrang Nagar, Line No.5,
        Nagpur, Tah & Distt. Nagpur - 440027.

 4)     The Divisional Commissioner,
        Nagpur Division, Nagpur,
        Civil Lines, Nagpur.

 5)     The Collector, Bhandara,
        Tah. and Distt. Bhandara.

 6)     The Sub-Divisional Officer,
        Bhandara, Tah. and Distt. Bhandara.                .... RESPONDENTS

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mr. R. A. Gupte, Advocate for petitioner
          Mr. S. M. Ghodeswar, Addl. G. P. for respondent nos.4 to 6.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                  CORAM :         AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

                                  DATED   :       10/02/2021


                                                                    208.wp.278.2016.odt


 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)


 1]                Heard Mr. Gupte, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.

Ghodeswar, learned Addl. G. P., appears for the respondent nos.4 to 6.

None appears for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

2] The present petition challenges the order as passed by the

respondent no.4 in Revision No.4/RTS/59/2013-14 of Mouza Wasela,

dated 23.07.2015, confirming the earlier orders passed by the SDO,

Bhandara dated 21.12.2012 and the Additional Collector, Bhandara,

dated 11.02.2014.

3] The land of Gat No.62, admeasuring 2.16 Hectare was

owned by the respondent nos.2 and 3, out of which a portion

admeasuring 1.20 Hectare, was sold to the present petitioner by a sale

deed dated 08.03.2010, consequent to which mutation entry was

effected in his name. The mutation entry was challenged before the

SDO by the respondent no.1, on the ground that he had an earlier

agreement of sale date 28.05.2003 in his favaour in respect of which, a

decree for specific performance had been passed in Special Suit No.36 of

2006 on 20.12.2008 and the sale to the petitioner was during the

pendency of the execution proceedings bearing No.23/ 2009. There was

another ground raised that the said land fell within the benefited zone of

the Ghosi-Khurd project and any transfer or sale was prohibited under

208.wp.278.2016.odt

Section 12 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation

Act , 1999, unless so permitted by the Authorities under the Act. The

learned SDO considering the prohibition under Section 12 of the Act of

1999, accepted the appeal, and canceled the mutation entry in favour of

the petitioner. An appeal carried to the Additional Collector against the

same came to be dismissed on 11.02.2014 and revision thereafter also

came to be dismissed on 23 July 2015.

4] The only ground canvassed by Mr. Gupte, learned counsel

for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier

proceedings, due to which the impugned order cannot be sustained.

5] Mr. Ghodeswar, learned Addl. G. P. for respondent nos. 4 to

6 submits that the prohibition in the statute affects the land and

therefore whether the petitioner was a party to the proceedings or not

cannot be a ground to up-set the orders.

6] It is not disputed that the land in question, fell within the

benefited zone of the Ghosi-Khurd project. It is also not disputed that

Section 12 of the Act of 1999, was applicable, which creates a

prohibition for transfer of the land in any manner whatsoever, unless so

permitted by the Authorities. Admittedly, there was no permission

obtained by the petitioner before execution and registration of the sale

deed dated 08.03.2010. This being the position, no fault can be found

208.wp.278.2016.odt

with the impugned order. In so far as the plea that the petitioner was

not party to the proceedings, it is not disputed that the predecessor i.e.

the Vendor of the petitioner was a party to the proceedings, in view of

which the petitioner would equally be bound by the orders passed

against his Vendor. There is therefore no merit in the petition and same

is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. In the circumstances, there

shall be no order as to costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J)

Sarkate.