Bombay High Court
Gautam S/O Shankar Raut And ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 24 March, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/6 16.wp4339.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 4339 OF 2019
Gautam s/o Shankar Raut and anr. 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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. N.N. Thengre, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondents/State.
Mr. Vilas M. Kulsange, Advocate for respondent No.4.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 24.03.2022.
By this writ petition, the petitioners have
challenged orders passed by the respondent Nos.2 &
3 concerning allotment of land to the respondent
No.4 under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal
of Government Lands) Rules, 1971.
2. The respondent No.4 applied as an
Ex-serviceman for allotment of land. His case was
forwarded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bramhapuri,
to the respondent No.2 - Collector, Chandrapur for
consideration. The said respondent took into
consideration the documents filed along with the
application and found the same to be in order. It was
specifically recorded that the respondent No.4 was
having annual income for the year 2011-12 of
2/6 16.wp4339.2019
₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,
being satisfied that the respondent No.4 could be
allotted land in terms of the aforesaid Rules, passed
an order dated 19.05.2014, granting such land on
specific terms and conditions.
3. The petitioners claimed to be in possession
of the said land. It is an admitted position that the
petitioners have no right in the said property, except
that they had happened to be in possession thereof
and on that basis they claimed to be aggrieved by
allotment of land to respondent No.4. On this basis,
the petitioners challenged the order passed by the
Collector, before the respondent No.3 - Commissioner
by filing an appeal. The Commissioner considered
the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners
and found that there was no substance in the same,
and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioners.
4. The matter was carried further by the
petitioners by filing a revision application, which
stood dismissed by the Minister for Revenue by order
dated 29.05.2019. The said orders have been
challenged in the present writ petition.
5. Mr. Thengre, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners contended that the allotment of
3/6 16.wp4339.2019
land to the respondent No.4 was in the teeth of the
aforesaid Rules, particularly Rule 11 (5) thereof. It is
submitted that in terms Rule 11 (5) of the said Rules,
no land could have been allotted to the respondent
No.4 as an Ex-serviceman because his gross annual
income exceeded ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, 35,000/-.
6. Attention of this Court was invited to the
order passed by the respondent No.2 - Collector,
which recorded that the annual income of respondent
No.4 for the year 2011- 2012 was ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,86,645/- which
far exceeded the limit specified in Rule 11(5) of the
aforesaid Rule and on this basis, it was clear that the
impugned orders deserved to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners
also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in
the case of Dadaji Shankar Patil & Others Vs.
Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department & Others,
2021 (1) Mh.L.J. 330.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Kulsange, learned
counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No.4
submitted that the aforesaid contention raised on
behalf of the petitioners was unsustainable, because
the application for allotment of land in the present
case was filed in the year 2010 and the order of
4/6 16.wp4339.2019
allotment was passed by respondent - Collector on
19.05.2014.
9. By placing reliance on Government
Resolution dated 12.07.2007, the learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that the
amount of gross annual income as stated in Rule
11(5) of the said Rules was revised to ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, 1,00,000/-
(₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, One Lakh Only) and therefore, on facts the
contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was not
sustainable.
10. It was submitted that the judgment in the
case of Dadaji Shankar Patil (Supra) can also be no
assistance to the petitioners, for the reason that the
said case pertained to the years 1991/1996 when the
gross annual income specified in the relevant Rule
was only ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, 12,000/-.
11. Mr. Dharmadhikari, learned Additional
Government Pleader appeared on behalf of the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 and he supported the
impugned orders passed by the authorities.
12. A perusal of Rule 11 (5) of the aforesaid
Rules shows that land cannot be granted to an Ex-
serviceman under the aforesaid Rules if the gross
annual income of such an Ex-serviceman exceeds
5/6 16.wp4339.2019
₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,1,00,000/- (₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, One Lakh Only), in terms of the
amendment brought about by Government Resolution
dated 12.07.2007. Admittedly, in the present case,
the respondent No.4 had moved the application for
allotment of land in the year 2010 and the
respondent - Collector passed the impugned order in
the year 2014. The respondent - Collector, appears
to have been aware about the increase in the limit of
gross annual income as per the Government
Resolution dated 12.07.2007 and it is for this reason
that in the order dated 19.05.2014, it is specifically
recorded that the annual income of respondent No.4
for the year 2011-2012 was ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, 86,645/-. The fact that
the annual income of the respondent No.4 was
₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,86,645/- is not disputed by the petitioners. Infact,
they have relied upon the same to further their
contention in the context of Rule 11(5) of the
aforesaid Rules.
13. It appears that the principal contention
raised on behalf of the petitioners is based on the
position of the Rule prior to issuance of Government
Resolution dated 12.07.2007, whereby the limit of
gross annual income was increased from ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector, 35,000/-
to ₹86,645/-. Thereupon, the respondent - Collector,1,00,000/-. Therefore, there is no substance in
the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners.
6/6 16.wp4339.2019
14. As regards other contentions sought to be
raised in the context of the aforesaid Rules, this Court
is not inclined to entertain the same, primarily
because the petitioners are admittedly encrochers. In
fact, the learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.4 has brought to the notice of this Court that
when the petitioners filed a Civil Suit before the
competent Court on the basis that they were in
possession of the said land and they sought an order
of temporary injunction, the same was rejected by the
Competent Court.
15. This Court is not commenting upon the
order passed by the competent Civil Court. Yet, it is a
factor indicating that the petitioners themselves have
no semblance of right in the land, which is found to
be correctly allotted to the respondent No.4 in terms
of the aforesaid Rules.
16. Hence, it is found that there is no merit
in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Prity
Digitally signed
by PRITY S
GABHANE
PRITY S Date:
GABHANE 2022.03.25
13:56:59
+0530
