Bombay High Court
Ajay Shrikrishna Parab vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 16 December, 2022
Bench: R.D. Dhanuka, S. G. Dige
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.365 OF 2022
Shri Ajay Shrikishna Parab )
Age : 49 years, Occ.Agriculture )
and Business, )
A/p. Village Kudase (Vanoshiwadi) )
Taluka: Dodamarg, District:Sindhudurg. ) ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra )
Through the Department of Revenue )
and Forest )
Having office at Mantralaya, )
Mumbai - 400032. )
2. The Collector, Sindhudurg )
Having office at Oras, )
District : Sindhudurg. )
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer(Revenue) )
Sub-Division Sawantwadi, )
Taluka: Sawantwadi, )
District : Sindhudurg. )
4. The Tahasildar Dodamarg )
Taluka: Dodamarg, )
District: Sindhudurg. ) ....Respondents
Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. M. S. Bane, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4- State.
CORAM : R. D. DHANUKA &
S. G. DIGE, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21st NOVEMBER, 2022.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th DECEMBER, 2022.
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA SHUBHADA
SHANKAR
SHANKAR KADAM
KADAM Date: 2022.12.16
15:38:15 +0530
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
Judgment (Per S. G. Dige, J) :
1. Rule. Ms. Bane, learned AGP, waives service on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 to 4. By consent, Rule is made returnable
forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the
impugned communication and order dated 4 th June, 2020 passed by
learned Collector, Sindhudurg (Respondent No.2) thereby cancelling
the draft notification No.REV-3601/1/2012 dated 11 th September,
2019.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Village Kudase, Taluka -Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg is
a large village comprised of 7 wadis viz. Gaothanwadi, Harijanwadi,
Bharpalwadi, Raulwadi, Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and
Deomalwadi. The said village is geographically divided into two
parts by river - Tilari. The villages viz. Gaonthanwadi, Harijanwadi,
Bharpalwadi and Raulwadi are situated on the northern side of the
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
river -Tilari and villages viz.Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and
Deomalwadi are situated on the southern bank of the said river. The
approximate population of the villagers who are residing within
northern side of hamlets/wadi is 669. While, the population of the
hamlets/wadis situated on the southern bank of the river is 851.
4. It was the grievance of the residents of Vanoshiwadi,
Dhanagarwadi and Deomalawadi that they have no proper
representation in the Grampanchayat of Village Kudase. As a
result, the overall growth and development of the area situated on
the southern bank of the river is hampered. For these and various
other reasons, it was a long standing demand of the residents from
the wadis of southern side to divide village Kudase into two parts
and thereby to form a separate revenue village for the above
mentioned area. The applications were submitted to respondent
Nos.2 and 4 seeking division of village Kudase and formation of two
separate revenue villages.
5. A draft notification bearing No. REV6301/1/2012 dated
11th September, 2019 was issued by respondent No.2, whereby it
was notified about the formation of two separate revenue villages as
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
Kudase and Vanoshi. The said formation was opposed by the
members of the village panchayat - Kudase. Accordingly, on the
objection, an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 post a
personal visit to village Kudase and a report was submitted to
respondent No.3. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2
declared that the draft notification dated 11 th September, 2019
stands cancelled. The petitioner filed a review petition before
respondent No.2 against the said cancellation of the draft
notification but it was rejected. This writ petition has been brought in
consequence of the said rejection.
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that Village - Kudase is a large village. The villages on the southern
side of the river Tilari are not developed. If a separate revenue
village is created, the villagers will get better educational
opportunities as well as proper medical facilities. The collector had
issued notification for formation of a separate village as the
population of these villages is more than 300. Accordingly,
notification was issued for formation of a separate village but it was
cancelled without any reasonable ground and without giving an
opportunity to the villagers to be heard, which is bad in law. Hence,
it is requested to allow this petition.
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
7. It is the contention of learned AGP that though earlier
notification was published for formation of separate revenue
villages, but there was an opposition from the side of the villagers.
An inquiry was conducted whether formation of a separate village is
suitable or not and report was submitted. According to that report,
the formation of a separate revenue village was not suitable.
Hence, the said notification was cancelled.
8. We have heard the arguments canvassed by both the
learned counsel. Admittedly, respondent No.2-Collector,
Sindhudurg, had issued notification for formation of separate
villages. As per Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966 ( for short "MLRC, 1966"), the Government may form a
separate revenue village by a notification in the Official Gazette.
Section 4 of the MLRC, 1966 reads thus:
"The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify-
(I)...
(ii)....
(iii)....
(iv)....
(v) The local area which constitute a village; and
(vi)....
Provided that, the State Government shall, as soon as possible
after the commencement of this Code, constitute by like
notification every wadi, and any area outside the limits of the
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
gaothan(the land included within the village site) of a village
having a separate habitation (such wadi or area having a
population of not less than three hundred, as ascertained by a
revenue officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar) to be a village;
and specify therein the limits of the village so constituted.
(2)......
(3)......
(4)......
This section provides that the State Government has
power to alter the limits of the village, consequent to the constitution
of any wadi, where the population of the said wadi is more than
300. Section 2, Sub-Section (43) of the MLRC defines the term
"Wadi" any area which is outside of the limits of gavthan of a village
where the population is not less than 300 is known as Wadi. The
Village - Kudase is comprised of 7 wadis. The population of
northern side of wadis is 669, while the population of southern side
of wadis is 851. The grievance of the residence of Vanoshiwadi,
Dhanagarwadi and Deomalawadi is that they have no proper
representation in the Grampanchayat of Village - Kudase, as a
result, overall growth and development of the area situated on the
southern bank of the river is hampered. It was the further grievance
that various government schemes could not be successfully
implemented on the southern side of the river due to lack of proper
representation in the Grampanchayat. The villagers residing on the
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
southern bank of the river Tilari have to travel a distance of 15-16
kms. to reach the office of the Grampanchayat and, on that basis,
representations were filed before respondent No.-2 for formation of
a revenue village.
9. It appears from record that considering the request of
villagers, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 21 st May, 2018, directed
respondent No.4 to submit his detail report. Respondent No.4
submitted his report to respondent No.3. On the basis of that
report, respondent No.3 submitted his report to respondent No.2
dated 23rd October, 2018. In the said report, respondent No.3
strongly recommended for formation of separate revenue village.
Accordingly, respondent No.2 published a draft notification in
respect of formation of a separate revenue village but when it was
objected by some villagers, it was cancelled.
10. We have perused the record and also the impugned order
thereby cancelling the notification. Neither any opportunity of
hearing was granted to the petitioner nor to the other Villagers of
Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and Deomalawadi to canvass the need
of formation of a new revenue village. The respondent No.2 did not
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
verify the fact that the reports submitted by the respondent Nos.3
and 4 were contrary to their own reports submitted earlier. The
respondent No.2 only considered the reports submitted by the
respondent Nos. 3 and 4 cancelling the draft notification dated 11 th
September 2019. The entire order is thus passed in gross violation
of principles of natural justice and without making any proper
enquiry. The impugned notification is without any basis and arbitrary.
11. We accordingly pass the following order :-
(i) Writ petition is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b).
(ii) The respondent No.2 Collector is directed to
grant group hearing to the petitioner as well as the
villagers of Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and Deomalawadi
before taking any decision in respect of the Draft
Notification No.REV-3601/1/2012 dated 11 th September
2019.
(iii) Fresh decision shall be taken in accordance
with law without being influenced by the observations
made and conclusions drawn in the impugned order dated
4th June 2020.
Shubhada S Kadam wp 365.2022.doc
(iv) Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No
order as to costs.
(v) Parties to act on the authenticated copy of this
order.
(S. G. DIGE, J.) (R. D. DHANUKA, J.)
