Bombay High Court
Shakuntalabai Gopichand ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 14 October, 2022
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, Sandeep V. Marne
1 wp_13549.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 13549 OF 2017
1. Shakuntalabai w/o Gopichand Dhaktode,
Age : 53 yrs, Occ. Household and Agriculture,
R/o - S. No. 488/15 Old Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
2. Anita w/o Sakharam Sathe,
Age: 34 yrs, Occ. Household and Agriculture,
R/o Dudhna Kalegaon,
Ta. & Dist. Jalna.
3. Kishor S/o Gopichand Dhaktode,
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
i) Vandana W/o Kishor Dhaktode,
Age : 46 yrs.
ii) Arjun S/o Kishor Dhaktode,
Age : 28 yrs.
iii) Ajay S/o Kishor Dhaktode,
Age : 26 yrs.
R/O S. No. 488/15, Jalna.
iv) Kavita Vikas Ghorpade,
Age : 23 yrs,
Rajendra Nagar, Borivali,
Mumbai.
4. Sunita w/o Ramesh Patole
Age: 29 yrs. Occ. Household and Agriculture,
R/o Devulgaonraja, Dist. Buldhana.
5. Kiran S/o Gopichand Dhaktode
Age: 31 yrs, Occ. : Agriculture,
R/o - S. No. 488/15 Old Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2022 12:52:31 :::
2 wp_13549.17.odt
6. Savita w/o Raju Ghorpade
Age: 29 yrs, R/o Rajendranagar,
Borivali, Mumbai.
7. Sharda D/o Gopichand Dhaktode,
Age : 27 yrs. Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o - S. No. 488/15 Old Jalna,
Dist. Jalna.
8. Tanhabai W/o. Kachru Randhawe,
Age: 68 Years, Occu. : HH and Agril.,
R/o - S. No. 488/15 Old Jalna,
Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai 400032.
2. The District Collector, Jalna.
3. The Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Jalna.
4. The Tahsildar, Jalna.
5. The District Superintendent of Police,
Jalna.
6. The Police Inspector,
Taluka Police Station, Jalna.
7. Matsyodari Education Society
through its Secretary, Gat No. 488
Near Railway Over Bridge, Jalna. .. Respondents
Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for the
Petitioners.
Shri S. B. Yawalkar, Addl.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
Shri V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Shri S. S. Tope, Advocate
for the Respondent No. 7.
::: Uploaded on - 15/10/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2022 12:52:31 :::
3 wp_13549.17.odt
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL AND
SANDEEP V. MARNE, JJ.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 07.10.2022
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 14.10.2022
JUDGMENT (Per Sandeep V. Marne, J.) :-
. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent
of parties taken up for final hearing.
THE CHALLENGE
2. The petitioners assail order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the
Collector, Jalna thereby confirming the order passed by the then
Assistant Collector, Jalna on 13.03.1991 for resumption of land
allotted to them. They also challenge orders dated 17.11.2008
06.11.2009 allotting the land in favour of the respondent No. 7.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The case involves checkered history. One Vithoba
Dhaktode was allotted land out of Sy. No. 488 for cultivation
under "Grow More Food Scheme", the objective of which was to
bring barren land under cultivation by alloting the same to the
landless persons. It is claimed that Vithoba brought the land
which was otherwise rocky, dry and barren under cultivation
through his onerous labour. Vithoba died on 28.04.1989 and
names of his legal heirs were brought on record by mutation
entry dated 19.08.1989.
4. On 13.03.1991, the then Assistant Collector, Jalna passed
common order against 31 persons for resumption of various lands
4 wp_13549.17.odt
without issuance of any notice and without following principles of
natural justice. The order included name of Vithoba, who had
already expired on 28.04.1989. The petitioners filed Writ Petition
No. 2398 of 1993 before this Court challenging the order dated
13.03.1991. The petition was admitted and interim relief was
granted by way of directions to the respondents not to disturb
their possession over the land. Fifteen other affected allottees
filed revision before the State Government challenging the order
dated 13.03.1991. The revision was allowed by the Officer on
Special Duty and Secretary (Appeals and Revision), Revenue and
Forest Department by order dated 30.07.1993 quashing and
setting aside the order dated 13.03.1991. Later, Writ Petition
No. 2398 of 1993 came to be allowed by this Court on 22.03.2012,
setting aside the order dated 13.03.1991. However, since the
factum of petitioners filing Civil Suit No. 165 of 1991 for
injunction was suppressed from this Court, costs of Rs. 5,000/-
were imposed on the petitioners with direction to deposit the
same with the Treasury within four weeks. The respondents
therein were granted liberty to initiate such proceedings as were
permissible under law against the petitioners. It is the case of
the petitioners that cost was deposited with the Nazir of this
Court.
5. After the Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993 was allowed and
the order dated 13.03.1991 was set aside, the petitioners
requested for restoration of their names in the record of rights.
Since the request was not accepted, the Contempt Petition No.
319 of 2012 was filed before this Court. During the pendency of
the contempt petition, the petitioners received notice dated
07.05.2014 from the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna proposing to
5 wp_13549.17.odt
conduct hearing in the proposed proceedings for resumption of
the lands. The petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional
Officer on various dates, but it is claimed that the hearing could
not take place.
6. The petitioners claim that on 13.09.2017 and 30.10.2017,
Naib Tahsildar attempted to disturb the possession of the
petitioners by bringing JCBs. At that time, the petitioners were
orally informed that the land was already allotted to other
persons. They first lodged F.I.R. for attempting to disturb their
possession and thereafter filed the present petition challenging
the allotment of land in favour of the unknown persons and
sought to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from taking over
possession of land without paying the compensation under the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
7. After affidavit in reply was filed, the petitioners noticed
that the land was already allotted by the Collector in favour of
the respondent No. 7 on 17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009 on lease for
15 years. They also noticed that the Collector had passed order
dated 12.05.2015 confirming the earlier order of the Assistant
Collector, Jalna dated 13.03.1991 and had thereby resumed the
lands. They claim that such order was passed by the Collector on
12.05.2015 without any notice to them and that the Sub
Divisional Officer, who was conducting hearing in the matter,
was also unaware of the order passed by the Collector. After the
Sub-Divisional Officer became aware of the order dated
12.05.2015 been passed by the Collector, Jalna, he was left with
no option but to close the case by issuance of communication
6 wp_13549.17.odt
dated 06.12.2017. The petitioners have therefore expressed shock
and surprise as to how the Collector, Jalna surreptitiously
passed order dated 12.05.2015, which was not in the knowledge
even of the Sub Divisional Officer. They have accordingly
amended the petition and have challenged the order dated
12.05.2015 passed by the Collector, Jalna as well as orders dated
17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009 allotting the lands in favour of the
respondent No. 7.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS
8. Appearing for the petitioners, Mrs. Kalplata Patil
Bharaswadkar, the learned counsel would submit that the order
dated 12.05.2015 has been passed in gross violation of principles
of natural justice. She submits that the petitioners did not
receive any notice from the Collector and that they were not even
aware of the fact that matter was taken up by the Collector for
adjudication. She would submit that from the notices dated
07.05.2014 and 29.11.2017 issued by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Jalna to the petitioners are indicative of the fact that proceedings
for resumption of the land were being conducted by the Sub
Divisional Officer, who himself was unaware of the fact that the
order was already passed by the Collector on 12.05.2015. She
would further submit that the lands could not have been allotted
by the Collector in favour of the respondent No. 7, as this Court
had granted interim relief protecting the possession of the
petitioners during the pendency of the Writ Petition No. 2398 of
1993. She would further submit that after the resumption order
dated 13.03.1991 was set aside by this Court in Writ Petition No.
2398 of 1993 by order dated 22.03.2012, the so-called allotment of
land in favour of the respondent No. 7 made in the year
7 wp_13549.17.odt
2008/2009 automatically became meaningless. She prays for
setting aside of order dated 12.05.2013 passed by the Collector,
Jalna as well as orders dated 17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009 allotting
the lands in favour of the respondent No. 7.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF STATE GOVERNMENT
9. Mr. Siddhartha Yawalkar, the learned Additional
Government Pleader appearing for the State Government
opposes the petition. He raises a preliminary objection of
availability of alternate remedy under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 of filing revision.
Referring to the order passed by the Collector on 12.05.2015, he
would submit that a hearing was indeed conducted on 28.04.2015
and that therefore, the contention of the petitioners of violation
of principles of natural justice is not tenable. He would submit
that the petitioners violated the condition of allotment of land.
He would submit that the land was allotted during the lifetime of
Vithoba for cultivation and after his death, the land would
automatically resumed in the State Government. Despite there
being specific condition prohibiting transfer of the land, the
petitioners illegally transferred the land. In this regard, he
relies upon the copy of sale deed executed in October 2015 by the
petitioner No. 1 in favour of Sawata Ashok Sable. He would also
refer to the report of the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna dated
04.03.1985 in respect of entire land Sy. No. 488 pointing out that
out of the 300 Acres land allotted to landless persons during 1961-
1962, 176 Acres of land was barren and the remaining land was
under cultivation. The reports indicate that some of the lands have
been illegally sold and transferred by four individuals. However,
upon a query being put by the Court as to whether report
8 wp_13549.17.odt
contains names of the petitioners, Mr. Yawalkar was not able to
point out anything in the report which would suggest that the
petitioners had sold or transferred the lands.
10. Appearing for the respondent No. 7, Mr. Sapkal, the
learned Senior Advocate would invite our attention to the
allotment letter dated 22.06.1960 issued in favour of Vithoba to
contend that the allotment was only during the lifetime of
Vithoba and that upon his death on 28.04.1989, the land
automatically reverted to the State Government. He invites our
attention to the stipulation in the allotment order which
prevented Vithoba from transferring the occupancy. He would
submit that the allotment for cultivation under the scheme did
not create any heritable right for the petitioners to stake any
claim in the land. He invites our attention to the judgment and
order dated 21.07.1993 passed in R.C.S. No. 165 of 1991
instituted by Gopichand Vithoba Dhaktode (husband of the
petitioner No. 1) seeking perpetual injunction from obstructing
and interfering in the possession over the land. The suit was
dismissed by judgment and order dated 21.07.1993, which
factum was suppressed while prosecuting the Writ Petition No.
2398 of 1993. On account of suppression of filing and decision of
the suit, this Court imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- on the petitioners
and deposit of the cost was made a precondition for allowing the
petition. He would submit that there was a specific directions by
this Court to deposit the cost of Rs. 5,000/-, 'with the Treasury',
which the petitioners admittedly did not deposit. He would
submit that the deposit of amount of the costs with the Nazir of
this Court was in violation of the order passed by this Court. He
9 wp_13549.17.odt
would submit that since the cost was not deposited 'with the
treasury', the order passed by this Court remained inoperational
so far as petitioners are concerned.
11. Mr. Sapkal also invites our attention to the conduct of the
petitioners in transferring the land and thereby committing
breach of condition of allotment. He would further submit that
so far as the other allottees who had filed revision before the
State Government were concerned, by order dated 16.08.1993,
passed by the Additional Collector, Jalna, earlier order of
resumption dated 13.03.1991 was confirmed. He therefore
submits that the petitioners cannot get different treatment
merely because they approached this Court instead of filing
revision before the State Government. Lastly, Mr. Sapkal would
submit that the respondent No. 7 has acquired valuable rights in
the land by paying the amounts directed by the State
Government and merely on the basis of cultivable rights granted
in favour of Vithoba during his lifetime, the petitioners cannot be
permitted to defeat rights created in favour of the respondent No.
7.
SUBMISSIONS IN REJOINDER
12. In rejoinder Mrs. Bharaswadkar Patil relies upon the
following decisions to counter the plea of alternate remedy :
I. Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd and another Vs. Principal
Secretary, Govt. of U.P. and others reported in (2004) 13
SCC 665.
II. L. Hirday Narain Vs. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly reported
in AIR 1971 SC 33.
10 wp_13549.17.odt
III. Firozali Abdulkarim Jivani and another Vs. The Union of
India and others reported in AIR 1992 Bombay 179.
13. She would further rely upon the provisions of Rule 19 of
the Andhra (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F to
contend that in the event of any breach of condition of allotment,
the Collector was first required to serve a notice of three months
to comply with condition and only upon failure of the allottee to
take corrective action within three months, an order of ejectment
could be passed. She also relies upon the provision of Section 58
of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Code to contend that occupancy
right is also deemed to be heritable and transferable right.
14. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our
consideration.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS
15. We first deal with the objection raised by Mr. Yawalkar
about availability of alternate remedy of filing revision under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It is trite that non-
exercise of writ jurisdiction in the light of availability of alternate
remedy is a self imposed restriction by the High Courts. There is
no hard and fast rule that in every case, where alternate remedy
is available this Court shall refuse to exercise the writ
jurisdiction. While ideally this Court would always relegate a
petitioner to available alternate remedy, at the same time writ
jurisdiction of this Court cannot be circumscribed by availability
of alternate remedy. In this connection Mrs. Patil has rightly
relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of L.
Hirday Narain (supra) and Durga Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra).
11 wp_13549.17.odt
16. Also, we find that the facts and circumstances of the
present case to be so peculiar that we would entertain the
present petition rather than relegating the petitioners to the
alternate remedy. There are multiple reasons for repelling the
objection of Mr. Yawalkar. Firstly, in respect of earlier
resumption order dated 13.03.1991 this Court did entertain Writ
Petition No. 2398 of 1993 and set aside the order. Secondly, Mr.
Yawalkar has not been able to produce any document on record
to show that a notice of hearing was indeed given by the
Collector before passing the impugned order dated 12.05.2015.
This aspect is being discussed in greater details in the latter part
of the judgment. Thirdly, in the light of the order that we
propose to pass, it would not be prudent to relegate the
petitioners to alternate remedy by not entertaining the petition.
We, therefore, proceed to entertain the petition by rejecting the
objection of alternate remedy raised by Mr. Yawalkar.
17. The land was allotted to Vithoba on 22.06.1960 for
cultivation. We reproduce Form G, by which written permission
to occupy the land was granted in favour of Vithoba.
FORM G
Written permission to occupy land (to be given by the
Tahsildar under, the Laoni Rules)
(See Rule 9(g))
Permission is hereby given to Vithoba S/o Vaghuji
inhabitant of Jalna in the Tahsil of Jalna District Auragngabad
to occupy Survey Number 488 of 16 (Sixteen Acres) (if it is
only a portion of Survey number) a portion of number in the
village of Jalna in the Taluq of Jalna in Aurangabad District.
(Name of the Party) Vithoba is to pay land revenue amount
12 wp_13549.17.odt
per yar from 1959-60 for the land granted for occupation
under this permit as assessment Rs. 28=00 (Rule Twenty
Eight only)
If, after the phodi work is completed, the area and
assessment are both fixed by the Department of Land Records
(Survey and Settlement) Vithoba is bound to pay the
assessment so fixed, but this change will take effect only from
the year following that in which such change has been made
as a result of the completion of phodi work by the Department
of Land Records.
(In the case of land granted as not transferable) he Vithoba
the grantee is not empowered to transfer the occupancy
without the saction previously obtained from the Collector.
This permission to occupy shall not confer the right to mine on
the land or collect minerals therefrom.
Place : Jalna Sd/- Sd/- (Seal) Sd/-
Date : 22-6-1960 Peshkar Talathi Tahsildar.22/6/60
18. Both Mr. Yawalkar and Mr. Sapkal have raised a
contention that the allotment was only during the lifetime of
Vithoba and that upon his death, his legal heirs were not entitled
to any hereditary right in respect thereof. They have therefore
contended that upon death of Vithoba, there ought to be
automatic resumption of land in favour of the State Government.
We are unable to agree with this contention. Firstly, there is no
condition in the allotment order that the allotment was only
during the lifetime of Vithoba and that upon his death the land
was to resume with the Government. Secondly, the theory of
automatic resumption of land is belied by the first order of
resumption dated 13.03.1991 passed by the then Assistant
Collector, Jalna. If there was automatic resumption of land,
there was no necessity for the then Assistant Collector, Jalna to
pass order of resumption on 13.03.1991. What is more important
13 wp_13549.17.odt
is that the then Assistant Collector probably was not even aware
about the death of Vithoba while passing order dated 13.03.1991,
as the order is passed in the name of Vithoba. Furthermore,
resumption order is not passed on the ground of death of allottee.
On the contrary the resumption order is passed citing a reason
that the land was not being utilized for the purpose for which
same was allotted. Neither in the earlier order of resumption
dated 13.03.1991 nor in the order dated 12.05.2015 now passed
by the Collector, any finding is recorded to the effect that the
land was allotted only during lifetime of Vithoba or that on his
death the land would automatically revert to the Government.
Therefore, we reject the contention of Mr. Yawalkar and Mr.
Sapkal in this regard.
19. Now, we proceed to examine the manner in which the
impugned order dated 15.05.2015 has been passed by the
Collector, Jalna. This Court granted liberty to the respondent
authorities to initiate such action as may be permissible under
law against the petitioners, if, there was violation of any
condition upon which the land was allotted or under any other
exigency permissible under law. We do not find any specific
communication under which either the Sub Divisional Officer or
the Collector proceeded to initiate the proceedings as
contemplated by this Court in its order dated 22.03.2012. What
is placed on record by the petitioners is notice dated 07.05.2014
issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna, which refers to the
earlier notice dated 03.03.2014 (which is not on record).
However, a presumption can possibly be raised that the Sub
Divisional Officer by issuing notices dated 03.03.2014 and
07.05.2014 did initiate proceedings for resumption of land in
14 wp_13549.17.odt
view of liberty granted by this Court in its order dated
22.03.2012. It appears that the proceedings for resumption of
land remained pending with the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna,
which is evident from the notices dated 27.03.2014, 07.05.2014,
16.06.2014, 19.11.2017 and 06.12.2017. Thus, it was the Sub
Divisional Officer, Jalna who was seized of the case for proposed
resumption of land against the petitioners. By the notice dated
29.11.2017, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna communicated that
a hearing was scheduled in his office on 05.12.2017 at 2.00 p.m.
which was required to be attended by the petitioners or their
advocate. It appears that a hearing was indeed conducted by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna on 05.12.2017 and the matter was
adjourned for further hearing to 11.12.2017. However, before
further hearing could be conducted on 11.12.2017, the Sub
Divisional Officer, Jalna issued letter dated 06.12.2017 to the
petitioners stating therein that he received letter dated
04.12.2017 from the Collector, Jalna pointing out that a final
decision in the matter was already taken by the Collector, Jalna
on 12.05.2015 confirming the earlier order of resumption of the
land. The Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna therefore, communicated
to the petitioners and their advocate that since the Collector,
Jalna had already passed an order on 12.05.2015, it would not be
appropriate for him to conduct the hearing in the matter. He
accordingly proceeded to close the case.
20. Thus the manner in which the entire case has been dealt
with is appalling. There is absolutely no answer as to how
Collector, Jalna proceeded to pass an order in a case which was
pending with the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna. It is quite
shocking and surprising that the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna
15 wp_13549.17.odt
was not even made aware of passing of the order by the Collector,
Jalna on 05.12.2015 and being oblivious of such order, Sub
Divisional Officer proceeded to conduct hearing in the case
pending before him. We find this conduct of the Collector, Jalna
to be most intolerable. The Collector, Jalna clearly overstepped
his authority and usurped the jurisdiction by passing order in a
case which was pending with another officer, without even
bothering to give an intimation to that officer that he was
passing an order in that case. In our opinion, there is colourable
exercise of power on the part of the Collector, Jalna in passing
order dated 12.05.2015.
21. Perusal of the order dated 12.05.2015 shows that a meeting
was convened in his office on 28.04.2015. The order records that
to initiate action as per the liberty granted by this Court in its
order dated 22.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993,
a hearing of legal heirs of Gopichand Vithoba Dhaktode was
conducted on 28.04.2015. While the recital no. 4 to the order
describes the alleged proceedings of 28.04.2015 as 'meeting', in
the body of the order, those proceedings are described as
'hearing'. The State Government has not placed on record any
notice of alleged hearing being conducted by the Collector on
28.04.2015. The petitioners have come up with a specific case
that the order dated 12.05.2015 was passed behind their back
and that they were completely oblivious of such order being
passed. When a case of this nature was set up by the petitioners,
it was incumbent for the State Government to demonstrate
before this Court that a notice of alleged hearing of 28.04.2015
was given to the petitioners. In absence of any documentary
evidence being placed before us, we are left with no choice but to
16 wp_13549.17.odt
hold that no notice of hearing was given to the petitioners before
conducting alleged meeting/hearing dated 28.04.2015. This leads
us to believe the case of the petitioners that they were not
present for any such hearing allegedly conducted on 28.04.2015.
The order is thus passed behind the back of the petitioners by
throwing the principles of natural justice to the wind.
22. The reasons recorded in the order dated 22.05.2015 renders
the same even worse. Only two reasons are cited in the order (i)
cost of Rs. 5,000/- was directed to be deposited in the Treasury,
which was deposited with Nazir of this Court and (ii) there is
violation of condition of allotment. So far as first reason is
concerned, we find the same to be too hyper technical. Whether
treasury or Nazir of this Court, the amount ultimately reaches to
the State Government. Deposit of costs in this Court instead of
deposit of the same in the Treasury would not render the order
dated 22.03.2012 ineffective. In fact, the Sub Divisional Officer
took cognizance of order dated 22.03.2012 and conducted hearing
in the matter during 2014 to 2017 without raising any demur
about non-deposit of cost in the Treasury. Therefore this reason
of non-deposit of cost in treasury is required to be outrightly
rejected. Therefore, the contention of Mr. Sapkal that the order
passed in Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993 would not take effect on
account of non deposit of cost with the treasury also deserves
rejection. So far as the second reason of violation of terms of
allotment are concerned, we find that the same is totally vague.
The Collector has not specified in his order as to which condition
of allotment was violated by the petitioners. Considering the
order that we propose to pass, we do not feel it necessary to dwell
any further about correctness of this reason recorded by the
17 wp_13549.17.odt
Collector and leave all contentions in this regard open.
23. We have therefore no hesitation in holding that the order
passed by the Collector, Jalna on 12.05.2015 is indefensible.
Same deserves to be set aside.
24. So far as the orders dated 17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009
allotting various lands in favour of the respondent No. 7 are
concerned, we find that the question of legality of the same would
depend upon the ultimate order that may be passed in the
resumption proceedings by the respondent authorities.
Therefore, we do not, at this stage, propose to deal with the issue
of validity of the orders dated 17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009
allotting lands in favour of the respondent No. 7.
25. Consequently, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
A. The order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Collector, Jalna
is set aside.
B. Since the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna is already seized of
the proceedings for resumption of lands, we permit the
Sub- Divisional Officer, Jalna to continue the said
proceedings and pass final order therein after granting full
and complete opportunity to the petitioners of being
heard.
C. While taking decision the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalna
shall not take into account the reasons of non-deposit of
costs by the petitioners in the Treasury and decide the
18 wp_13549.17.odt
proceedings strictly on merits.
D. Depending on the final outcome of the proceedings pending
before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna, further decision be
taken by the Collector, Jalna with regard to the orders
dated 17.11.2008 and 06.11.2009 allotting lands in favour
of the respondent No. 7.
E. With these directions, the writ petition is allowed.
F. Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no
order as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]
bsb/Oct. 22
