Bombay High Court
Pandurang Namdeo Morge Thr Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil, S. G. Chapalgaonkar
1 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 5710 OF 2014
Bhausaheb S/o Yamaji Dhanwate,
Age : 67 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Mauje Puntamba, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32
2] The Collector, Ahmednagar District,
Ahmednagar
3] The Additional Collector, Ahmednagar
4] The Deputy Collector (Elections), Ahmednagar .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6279 OF 2014
1] Pandurang S/o Namdeo Morge (Died)
Through L.R.s
Babasaheb S/o Murlidhar Morge
Age : 47 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
2] Gopal S/o Gangaram Dawkhar (Died)
Through L.Rs.
2-A) Babasaheb S/o Revji Dawkhar
Age : 67 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o Ward No. 7, Near Kalaram Mandir,
Shriram, Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
2-B) Annasaheb Revji Dawkhar
Age : 61 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o as above
3] Sakharam S/o Ahilyaji Morge (Died)
Through L.Rs.
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 23:01:29 :::
2 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
3-A) Bhimraj S/o Sakharam Morge
Age : 70 years, Occu : Agricultural,
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
3-B) Vilas S/o Suryabhan Morge
Age : 38 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o As above
4] Gopinath S/o Namdeo Morge (Died)
Through L.Rs.
4-A) Saraswati Popat Morge
Age : 64 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
4-B) Sitaram S/o Gopinath Morge,
Age : 60 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o as above
4-C) Gorakshanath S/o Gopinath Morge,
Age : 57 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o : AS ABOVE
5] Raibhan S/o Satoba Morge (Died)
Chandrabhan S/o Satoba Morge (Died)
Gangadhar S/o Satoba Morge (Died)
Through L.Rs.
5-A) Jijabai Raibhan Morge
Age : 72 years, Occu : Agriculture
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
5-B) Gujabai Chandrabhan Morge
Age : 68 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
5-C) Vatsalabai @ Yamunabai Gangadhar Morge
Age : 65 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
6] Keshav S/o Babji Morge (Died)
Through L.Rs.
6-A) Vijay S/o Ramnath Morge
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 23:01:29 :::
3 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
6-B) Baban Vishwanath Morge
Age : 60 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
6-C) Raju Vishwanath Morge
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
6-D) Satish Vishwanath Morge
Age : 40 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
7] Khandu Gamaji Morge
Through L.R.s
7-A) Balasaheb Rambhau Morge
Age : 40 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
8] Trimbak Bhimaji Labade (Died)
Through L.Rs.
8-A) Kansraj Trimbak Labade
Age : 71 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Gondhawani, Bhairavnath Nagar,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmedngar
9] Parvatabai Trimbak Labade (Died)
Rangnath Namdeo Labade (Died)
Through L.R.s.
9-A) Kansraj Trimbak Labade
Age : 71 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o Gondhawani, Bhairavnath Nagar,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
9-B) Ramchandra Rangnath Labade
Age : 68 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
9-C) Laxman Rangnath Labade
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
(Respondents 9-B and 9-C Deleted
as per Courts Order dated 03-02-2022)
9-D) Saraswati Rangnath Labade
Age : 78 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 23:01:29 :::
4 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
9-E) Chandrakant Deoram Ingale
Age : 52 years, Occu : Agriculture,
R/o As above
10] Vasant Bhaskar Agashe (Died)
Through L.Rs.
10-A) Vinay Vasantrao Agashe
Age : 57 years, Occu : Agriculture
R/o Ward No. 7, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar .. Petitioners
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2] The District Collector, Ahmednagar
3] The Sub Divisional Officer, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
4] The Tahsildar, Shrirampur,
Tq. Shrirampur, Dist. Ahmednagar
5] The Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd.,
270, Bhamburda, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Pune - 411 016
6] Sanjay Sitaram Gaware
Age : 47 years, Occu : Agri.
7] Bajrang Natha Bilware
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,
Both R/o Shiesgaon, Tq. Shrirampur
Dist. Ahmednagar
8] Dinkar Pandurang Bhosle
Age : 45 years, Occu. : Agri.,
9] Madhukar Pandurang Bhosle
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,
10] Pramod Sahadu Bhosle
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.
Both R/o Valadgaon, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 23:01:29 :::
5 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
11] Pandharinath Dagdu Gaware
Age : Major, Occu : Agri.,
12] Babasaheb Sitaram Gaware
Age : Major, Occu : Agri.,
Both R/o Shrisgaon, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar
13] Popat Changdeo Kale,
Age : 55 years, Occu : Agri.,
14] Bhagwat Ramchandra Kale
Age : 55 years, Occu : Agri.,
Both R/o : Vaiadgaon, Tq. : Shrirampur
Dist. : Ahmednagar
15] Ramesh Kashinath Shete
Age : 60 years, Occu : Rahata
R/o Nandur, Tq. Rahata
Dist. Ahmednagar
16] Appasaheb Shaharam Gaware
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri.,
17] Rajendra Sakhahari Gaware
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri.
Both R/o : Shrisgaon, Tq. Shrirampur
Dist. Ahmednagar
18] Sitaram Ganpat Dhanad
Age : 50 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o : Shrisgaon, Tq. Shrirampur,
Dist. Ahmednagar
19] Baban Parashram Sonwane,
Age : 45 years, Occu : Agri.,
R/o Belapur, Tq. ; Shrirampur,
Dist. : Ahmednagar
(Respondents no. 6 to 19 Added as per Courts
order dated 10-07-2015 in CA/9574/2015) .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2312 OF 2015
(Appasaheb Kisan Gaikwad Died through LRs. and others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others)
::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2023 23:01:29 :::
6 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6270 OF 2014
(Narayan S/o Parasram Morge Died through LRs. and others
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others)
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 982 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6279/2014
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13864 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6279/2014
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11884 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6279/2014
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14853 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6279/2014
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11888 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6270/2014
...
Mr. A.B. Kale h/f. Mr. B.K. Pawar for petitioner in WP/5710/2014, WP/6279/2014,
WP/6270/2014, WP/2312/2015 & for applicants in CA/11888/2022, CA/11884/2022,
CA/14853/2018, for respondents no. 6 to 16 in CA/982/2016 and CA/13864/2018
Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for applicant in CA/13864/2018
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the respondent no. 5 in WP/6279/2014, WP/6270/2014,
CA/13864/2018, CA/982/2016, CA/14853/2018, CA/11884/2022, CA/11888/2022
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for the respondent - State (in all matters)
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for applicant in CA/982/2016, for respondents
no. 6 to 9 in WP/6270/2014, CA/11888/2022
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20 FEBRUARY 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 16 MARCH 2023
JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :
Though these are different petitions since all these petitions raise
common questions those have been heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Rule in all the petitions. Made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP
and the learned advocates for the respective respondents waive
service. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard and
are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.
7 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
3. The questions that arise for determination are as to whether the
original agriculturists whose lands vested in the State government
under the provisions of section 28 of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
Ceiling Act) are entitled under section 28-1 AA(3) to claim grant of any
specific land or their land/s.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Kale h/f. Mr. Pawar for the petitioners in all
these petitions would submit that the petitioners being the persons who
had previously leased their lands to an undertaking and which were
subsequently vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of the
Ceiling Act, are entitled to grant of such lands for personal cultivation to
the extent of the ceiling area or the actual area of the land leased by
such person to the undertaking which have been their lands. In view of
such specific and clear wordings of sub-section (3) of section 28-1 AA,
the petitioners were insisting the respondent - Collector for grant of their
specific lands which they had leased out to an undertaking but
subsequently vested with the State government and later on granted in
favour of the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter
referred to as the MSFC) by virtue of an order passed under section
28-1 AA, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings) Grant of Surplus Lands taken over from Industrial
8 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
Undertakings Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of
1970).
He would submit that though the surplus lands were
subsequently granted to MSFC, latter has no right to retain a specific
portion of their lands granted to it. It has no locus standi to oppose the
petitioners' request for allotment of their lands taken over by the State
by operation of law. It is the prerogative of the State under the
provisions of section 28-1 AA(3) to grant the land back to the persons
who had previously leased their lands to the undertaking, for personal
cultivation.
He would submit that it would be logical that once having taken
over the surplus lands from the undertaking if the persons who had
leased those lands have been made entitled to re-grant, they are
granted it for personal cultivation the same land which originally
belonged to them. Defying such logic the respondents are illegally
refusing to allot the petitioners' respective lands under the provision.
5. Mr. Kale would further submit that on the one hand the MSFC is
opposing the petitioners' request but at the same time, contrary to the
object of preserving integrity of the lands, it is transferring the lands and
such actions are even politically motivated. Huge chunk of land at one
go has been granted to specific individuals contrary to the aims and
object of the Ceiling Act.
9 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
6. The learned AGP Mr. Yawalkar would submit that the petitioners
have no such right for grant of a specific land. Even a plain reading of
sub-section (3) of section 28-1AA does not indicate that the persons like
the petitioners who had previously leased out their lands to the
undertaking but were found to be surplus with such undertaking and
vested with the State government by virtue of the provisions of the
Ceiling Act. The petitioners do not have any vested right irrespective of
the fact that they may have some emotional attachment and intent to
possess the selfsame land which they had earlier leased out to the
undertaking. Rather entertaining such requests by different farmers
would be contrary to the intention of the legislature of maintaining
integrity of the surplus land in one or more compact blocks. Allotment
of such lands to different persons on the ground that it was at some
point of time owned by them would adversely affect the integrity of the
lands. He would therefore submit that apart from the fact that sub-
section (3) of section 28-1AA does not specifically make the persons
who had leased the land to an undertaking entitled to grant of land for
personal cultivation, accepting their claim would result in disintegration
as the different persons would be possessing different portion in bits
and pieces impacting the integrity.
7. Mr. Yawalkar would further submit that some of the petitioners
have consciously accepted the grant of different lands and are
10 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
estopped from putting up any claim for any specific land. He would also
submit that since the lands vest with the State government, in the
absence of any specific provision in the Ceiling Act, such grant under
sub-section (3) is a matter of policy decision of the government which
cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction.
8. As can be appreciated, there is no dispute regarding the material
facts and one can safely proceed on the premise that the petitioners are
the persons who had leased out their lands to the undertaking and were
found surplus with such undertaking and were resumed and vested in
the State by virtue of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. It is also a
common ground that all these lands were subsequently granted to the
MSFC under the Order of 1970. The only question, as is formulated
herein-above is whether the petitioners have any right to claim grant of
lands which once upon a time were owned by them but they had leased
it to the undertaking, by virtue of the provisions of section 28-1 AA(3).
9. The relevant portion of section 28-1 AA reads as under:-
"28-1 AA.
(1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official
Gazette,not later than ninety days from the commencement of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment)
Act, 1970, grant the surplus land taken over from the industrial
undertakings and referred to in section 28 and which is being
cultivated by one or more corporations, (including a company) owned
and controlled by the State to such corporation or corporations, as the
case may be, subject to such terms and conditions, including in
particular, the condition of maintaining the integrity of the surplus land,
in one or more corporations as aforesaid the provisions of section 28
so far as they provide for setting up of joint farming societies shall not
apply in relation to such surplus land.
(2) The State Government may provide that, -
11 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
(a) for the breach of any term of condition referred to in sub-
section (1), or
(b) if it considers after such inquiry as it thinks fit, that the
production of raw material is not maintained at the level or in
the manner which, with proper and efficient management it
ought to be maintained, or
(b-1) it is considered necessary by the State Government for
any public purpose to take away all or part of the land
presently vested in the Corporation (including a company), or
(c) for any other reason it is undesirable in the interest of the
full and efficient cultivation of the land, that the corporation
(including a company) should continue to cultivate the land,
the grant shall, after giving three month's notice of termination
thereof and after giving the corporation reasonable opportunity
of showing cause, be terminated, and the land resumed.
Thereafter, the State Government may itself take steps by
running or managing one or more farms for the proper
cultivation of the land and maintenance of the production of
raw material or may dispose of the land in the manner as
provided in sub-sections (3) and (3A).
(3) The State Government may, subject to the provisions of
sub-section (4), after ascertaining the views of the persons
interested in the land referred to in sub-section (1), also grant
such land to a person who had previously leased his land to
the undertaking, who (not being a public trust), requires that
land for his personal cultivation, to the extent of the ceiling area
as stipulated in the Act, or the actual area of the land leased by
such person to the undertaking, whichever is less, subject to
such other terms and conditions as may be specified in this
behalf :
Provided that ...
.....
.....
3(A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3),
the State Government may dispose of the lands vested in
Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited, for a public
purpose, and when such disposal is to the institution other than
the Government or Semi-Government institutions, such
allotment will be made at the market rate fixed under the
Bombay Stamp (Determination of the Market Value of
Property) Rules, 1995 framed under the Bombay Stamp Act,
1958 or by public auction on such terms and conditions as may
be specified by the State Government, by special or general
order issued in this behalf.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-section, the
expression "dispose of the lands for the public purpose" means
disposal of land, for a public purpose in favour of an
educational, medical or public health institution, or social
welfare and cultural institution or for any other purpose
mentioned in the Development Plan under section 22 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, or for any
12 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
other public purpose included in clause (f) of section 3 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, situated within the vicinity of five
kilometres from the municipal area of a Council or Nagar
Panchayat as defined in clause (24) of section 2 of the
Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and
Industrial Townships Act, 1965, larger urban area specified
under sub-section (2) of section 3 of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and clause (10) of section 2
of the City Nagpur Corporation Act, 1949.
(4) The particulars of land to be granted under sub-section (3)
shall be such as the State Government may, having due regard
to the need to maintain the integrity of the farm in one or more
compact blocks, by order in writing, specify."
10. A plain reading of sub-section (3) would clearly indicate that the
grand of land to a person who had previously leased out his land to the
undertaking requiring that land for his personal cultivation does not
specifically indicate that it should be the same land which he had
leased out to the undertaking.
11. The emphasis of the learned advocate Mr. Kale on the word 'that'
between the words 'requires' and 'land' though appears attractive at the
first blush, a plain reading of the entire sub-section (3) and particularly
the further wording restricting such grant to the extent of the ceiling
area stipulated under the Act or the actual area of the land by such
person to the undertakings makes it abundantly clear that the word
'that' is referring to the extent of the land and not a specific land to
which a person is entitled to a grant. Though a person had leased a
specific land to an undertaking which has been subsequently found to
be surplus with such undertaking and resumed and vested in the State,
13 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
those individuals cannot be said to have any vested right to have a
specific land which they were owning.
12. Even if for the sake of arguments such a stand of the petitioners
is accepted on the interpretation sought to be placed on the wording of
this sub-section (3), the interpretation would run afoul to the avowed
object expressed at various places not only under the Ceiling Act but
even in the Order of 1970 of maintaining the integrity of the land in one
or more compact blocks. Such intention and object of the legislature is
so expressly clear from the use of these words in sub-section (1) and
even sub-section (4) of section 28-1 AA. Practically, if the persons like
the petitioners are to be granted the lands which they had leased out to
the undertaking, this would obviously lead to disintegration as all these
persons would be claiming different portions from different lands.
Therefore, even for this reason, harmonious interpretation would be
necessary while assigning some meaning to the use of the word 'that'
between the words 'requires' and 'land' in sub-section (3).
13. If the selfsame land or portion of the land is to be granted to an
individual, such integrity cannot be maintained in compact blocks. We,
therefore, have no hesitation in concluding that the persons like the
petitioners have no right for grant of their erstwhile lands under sub-
section (3) of section 28-1 AA.
14 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
14. In this connection, it is also necessary to note that by way of
amendment, some of these petitioners have put up a challenge to the
clauses nos. 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 of the government resolution / circular dated
04-05-2012 on the ground that these guidelines are contrary to the
statutory provisions contained in sub-sections (3) and sub section (3A)
of section 28-1 AA.
15. The learned advocate Mr. Kale for the petitioners would submit
that these guidelines were issued to streamline allotment / grant of
lands to the erstwhile owners - farmers. These guidelines were framed
pursuant to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings)
(Amendment) Act, 2011. He would submit that contrary to the statutory
provisions these guidelines restrict such grant or allotment under the
guise of streamlining the process. Without there being any stipulation
in the statutory provision, the grant of such lands to the erstwhile
farmers excludes the category of lands described therein, as lands
having non-agricultural use potential, the lands in the vicinity of the
towns, the lands which are under water conservation or having such
potential, lands included in the draft or final development plan under the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and also the lands
regarding which there is already a request for allotment by the public
undertakings or other department of the State. He submits that carving
out such exceptions supersedes the statutory provisions and the
15 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
government by a subordinate legislation or departmental circular cannot
supersede the statutory provision.
16. The submission is indeed attractive. However, a careful reading
of the statutory provision and the scheme contemplated under section
28-1 AA and particularly sub-section 3 and 3-A would negate this
submission. As we have indicated herein-above, the argument is based
on the premise that sub-section 3 gives a right to the person who had
previously leased out his land to the undertaking to a specific land
demanded by him. We have demonstrated that they do not have any
such right and the provision does not mandate allotment / grant of the
selfsame land held by a person before it vested in the State
government for allotment to him for personal cultivation. When the
edifice on which the petitioners stand has been found to be
unsustainable in law, the argument of Mr. Kale that these guidelines are
inconsistent with the statutory provision contained in sub-section 3 of
section 28-1 AA falls to the ground.
17. Rather, sub-section 3A of section 28-1 AA specifically enables the
State government to dispose of the land vested in the MSFC for a
public purpose. The provision is in the form of an exception to sub-
section 3. As can be seen that it starts with a non obstante clause. In
our considered view, clauses 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 of the government
guidelines dated 04-05-2012 by no stretch of imagination run counter to
16 WP / 5710 / 2014 +GROUP
sub-section 3. It is abundantly clear that these guidelines are in tune
with the statutory provisions contained in sub-section 3-A of section
28-1 AA.
18. Apart from the above state-of-affair, some of the petitioners have
consciously accepted the allotment of different lands and would be
estopped from asserting any right seeking allotment of any specific
lands.
19. In the light of the view which we are expressing, we do not intend
to go into the aspects regarding the locus standi of the MSFC to oppose
the petitions. Considering the reliefs being claimed, this Court even
need not go into and examine the aspect regarding either the grant of
some lands by the State government for any public purpose or transfer
of some lands by the MSFC to specific individuals if that has taken
place pursuant to the stipulations in the Order of 1970 under which the
lands were granted to it.
20. All the petitions are dismissed and the pending civil applications
are disposed of. Rule is discharged.
[ S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
