Bombay High Court
Bhanudas S/O Butan Jamgade vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 6 October, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
2023:BHC-NAG:14655
1 23.WP.7447-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 7447 OF 2019
( Bhanudas s/o Butan Jamgade
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. S.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. S.S. Jachak, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 to 5.
Mr. S.V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No.6.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 6th OCTOBER, 2023
Heard Mr. Deshpande learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mrs. Jachak, learned AGP for the respondent
Nos. 1 and 3 to 5/State and Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel
for the respondent No.6.
2. The petition challenges the order dated
23.05.2012 passed by learned Sub Divisional Officer
(for short SDO) (page 20) as well as the order dated
07.08.2014 passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Nagpur (for short MRT) (page 24).
3. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits, that in light of the provisions of Section 29 (2) of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act,
1961 (for short the "Act of 1961" hereinafter) read with sub-
2 23.WP.7447-2019.odt
section 4 (ii), which is on account of amendment, the
impugned orders cannot be sustained. He therefore seeks to
quash and set aside the same.
4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 6, opposes the contention and submits, that
the petitioner has no locus to file the present petition having
chosen not to challenge the order of the SDO before the
learned MRT.
5. The factual position indicates, that the petitioner
was allotted the land of Survey No. 53/1 admeasuring 1.34
HR and 53/3 admeasuring 0.12 HR situated at Mouza
Godhni, Tahsil Hingna, which was declared surplus
agricultural land, being an ex-serviceman under the
provisions of the Act of 1961, it has come on record that by
sale deed dated 08.06.1992, the petitioner had sold the said
land to the respondent No.2, who is now represented by her
legal heirs.
6. Since, an application was made for permission to
transfer the said land to the respondent No.3 by the
petitioner, for transfer of the land to Mr. Ajay Khobragade, an
enquiry was conducted by the respondent No.3/SDO, in
which it was found, that the petitioner had already
transferred the said land without the requisite permission to
the respondent No.2 by a sale deed dated 08.06.1992. He
therefore by his order dated 23.05.2012 directed forfeiture of
the land to the State under Section 29 (3) of the Act 1961 as
it then existed.
7. The petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal
3 23.WP.7447-2019.odt
against the same to any authority, in view of which, it is
apparent, that the petitioner has accepted the said order. It is
the original respondent No.2 Raziya Nasrin, who has filed an
appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT)
against the order dated 23.05.2012 of the learned SDO
challenging the same. In the said appeal, by its judgment
dated 07.08.2014, the order of the SDO forfeiting the
property and vesting the same in the Government and
denying regularization of the transaction was set aside and
the matter was remanded back to the SDO for deciding it
afresh in light of the amended provisions of the Statute and
the Rules. What is also necessary to note is that in para 4 of
the judgment by the MRT, it has been specifically held that
since the present petitioner has not filed appeal against the
order of the SDO, the same has attained finality.
8. Though, Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the
petitioner, contends that the sale deed dated 08.06.1992
executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent No.2, is
a fraudulent sale deed, it is apparent, that inspite of being
aware of the same, no proceedings for cancellation of the
same or to get it set aside, has been preferred by the
petitioner till now.
9. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner,
contends that the Collector acting under Section 30 of the Act
of 1961 would have the powers, to make a declaration that
the sale deed dated 08.06.1992 was illegal, and therefore, the
petitioner did not make such a claim. I am afraid I am unable
to accept the argument for the reason that Section 30 of the
Act of 1961 relates to the power of the Collector in making
4 23.WP.7447-2019.odt
enquiries, for which purpose how the enquiry has to be made
and what powers the Collector possesses while making such
an enquiry is what is delineated in Section 30 of the Act of
1961. Section 30 of the Act of 1961, does not confer any
jurisdiction upon the Collector to make a declaration
regarding any sale deed or any other transaction to be null
and void or illegal, and therefore, the reliance placed upon
the powers of Collector under Section 30 of the Act of 1961 to
contend that in exercise of the same he would have the power
to declare the sale deed dated 08.06.1992 as null and void
and illegal, is clearly misconceived.
10. It is also necessary to note, that since the
petitioner has chosen not to challenge the order before the
MRT, he being the party before the MRT as respondent No.4,
would therefore be bound by the said order and cannot now
be permitted to turn around and challenges the same. No
other submission has been canvassed. In that view of the
matter, I do not see any merit in the petition.
11. The Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
SD. Bhimte
Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 07/10/2023 15:25:32
