Bombay High Court
Nivrutti Sahadu Ghorpade And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 13 October, 2022
Bench: C.V. Bhadang
6 wp 11798-19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11798 OF 2019
Nivrutii Sahadu Ghorpade and Anr. ..Petitioners
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra thr.
State Revenue Minister and Ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr. Sanjay Shinde a/w Anjali Binjola for the Petitioners.
SNEHA
NITIN Mr. C.D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CHAVAN Mr. S.B. Deshmukh for Respondent Nos. 4 to 6, 7A, 8 and 9.
Digitally signed by ----
SNEHA NITIN
CHAVAN CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.
Date: 2022.10.13
15:55:42 +0530
DATE : 13 OCTOBER 2022
:JUDGMENT:
. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives
service for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The learned counsel Mr.
Deshmukh waives service for Respondent Nos. 4 to 9. Heard
finally by consent of parties.
2. This petition can be disposed of on a short count.
3. The subject matter of dispute is land Gat No. 17 (old
Survey No. 14/2) of mouje Pandane, Tahsil Dindori, District
Nashik. The said land was granted to late Mahadu Barku Patil
and Sahadu Barku Patil on equal share as a vatan land and a
Mutation Entry No. 144 was recorded on 16.03.1951. The Grant
Sneha Chavan page 1 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
was inter alia on the condition that the land shall be personally
cultivated by the allottees and shall not be given to any other
person for cultivation without prior permission. It appears that
on 25.01.1951, the Grant was cancelled as the allottees were not
belonging to the backward class and Mutation Entry No. 165
dated 17.05.1954 was taken.
4. The said land was then allotted to late Sahadu Punja
Ghorpade, the father of the Petitioner No.1 as per order passed
by the Tahsildar Dindori on 15.03.1953 at three times of the land
revenue on the new tenure. It appears that from 1965-1966, the
land was found to be in possession of Dhavalu Mukunda Gavit
and others and even for the subsequent period of three years from
1966-1967 to 1968-1969, the land was found to be in cultivating
possession of third parties. Considering this as a 'first violation'
by virtue of ME No. 280 dated 09.10.1966. The allotment was
cancelled as per order passed by the Revenue Authority dated
20.09.1966. However, the record discloses that from 1969-1970
to 2007-2008, the late father of the Petitioner No.1 Sahadu
Ghorpade and after him his heirs continued to cultivate the land.
In 2009-2010, again the name of Sahadu Punja Ghorpade and
his wife were shown to be in cultivating possession of the said
land.
Sneha Chavan page 2 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
5. The record discloses that by an order dated 14.07.2011
passed by the Collector, Nashik, the land was allotted to the
Petitioner for a period of two years on a yearly basis on similar
conditions, inasmuch as the Petitioners were belonging to the
backward class and the violation was found to be the 'first
violation'. This allotment by order dated 14.07.2011 was subject
to the report from the Revenue Authority to verify personal
cultivation by the Petitioners. The record further discloses that
Tahsildar Dindori sent a report dated 20.01.2014 stating that the
Petitioners have personally cultivated the land for two years
period from 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Thus, according to the
Petitioners, the Petitioners had complied with the conditions of
the allotment/Grant by order dated 14.07.2011. The Petitioners
have also annexed the receipts of the land revenue which the
Petitioners had paid.
6. The dispute starts when the private Respondents
approached the learned Revenue Minister purportedly under
Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for
re-grant of the land. It may be mentioned that the private
Respondents are the successors of Mahadu Barku Patil and
Sahadu Barku Patil. The Collector, Nashik was the sole
Respondent before the Revenue Minister. The Revenue Minister
by the impugned order dated 09.09.2019 has regranted the land
Sneha Chavan page 3 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
to the heirs of original grantees Mahadu and Sahadu Patil.
Feeling aggrieved, the Petitioners are before this Court.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused
record.
8. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the
subject land was granted to the Petitioners by the Collector on
14.07.2011 for a period of two years on a yearly basis inter alia on
condition of personal cultivation which condition has been
complied with by the Petitioners which is apparent from the
report of the Tahsildar, Dindori dated 20.01.2014. He therefore,
submitted that private Respondents (successors of the original
allotees Mahadu Barku Patil and Sahadu Barku Patil) could not
have directly approached the Hon'ble Minister for regrant of the
land and that too under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966. He submits that the impugned order
shows that the Hon'ble Minister has treated the proceedings as
being appeal without there being any order which was subject
matter of challenge before the Revenue Minister. He submitted
that the private Respondents have also filed civil suit seeking the
relief of injunction etc. in respect of the subject land which is
pending.
Sneha Chavan page 4 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
9. The learned counsel for the private Respondents has
submitted that the application before the Hon'ble Minister was a
composite application for re-grant as per Section 5 of the Vatan
Abolition Act and under 1966 Code. He submitted that after the
period of two years, the land has not been finally allotted in
favour of the Petitioners. He pointed out that by the order dated
14.07.2011, the land was allotted to the Petitioner only for a
period of two years. He, therefore, has supported the impugned
order.
10. The learned AGP has also supported the impugned order.
11. I have considered the submissions made. The material facts
are matters of record and thus, are not in dispute. It is
undisputed that the land was initially allotted to Mahadu Patil
and Sahadu Patil in the year 1951 and on account of breach of the
condition of personal cultivation and also on account of fact that
original allottees were not belonging to the backward class, that
allotment has been cancelled and subsequently by the order dated
14.07.2011, the land has been granted to the Petitioner for a
period of two years with a condition of personal cultivation. It is
also apparent from the record that there is a report from Tahsildar
Dindori dated 20.01.2014 stating that the Petitioners have
personally cultivated the land for 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
Sneha Chavan page 5 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
12. Although the learned counsel for the private Respondents
has submitted that it was a composite application before the
Hon'ble Minister, no order which could be subject matter of
challenge before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister is pointed out. I
have also perused the application made by the private
Respondents to the Hon'ble Minister on the basis of which the
impugned order is passed and it neither shows that it was an
appeal or a revision.
13. Be that as it may. Once it is found that the land was
allotted to the Petitioners in the year 2011 albeit for a limited
period of two years on condition of personal cultivation which
prima facie appears to have been complied with, the Hon'ble
Minister could not have passed the impugned order behind the
back of the Petitioners. In my considered view, there is a clear
breach of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned
order and it would be appropriate if the Hon'ble Minister decides
the application afresh after hearing the Petitioners.
14. In that view of the matter, petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order is hereby set aside.
15. The proceedings which are registered as Appeal No.
3015/6676/153/J-6 are restored to the file of the Hon'ble
Sneha Chavan page 6 of 7
6 wp 11798-19.doc
Minister for deciding the same afresh in accordance with law after
hearing the parties.
16. The Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 4 to 9 to appear
before the Hon'ble Minister on 14.11.2022 personally or through
their authorised representatives.
17. Rival contentions of the parties on merits are left open.
Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no
order as to costs.
C.V. BHADANG, J.
Sneha Chavan page 7 of 7
