Bombay High Court
Ambadas Arjun Kadam Died Through Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 7 May, 2024
1 31wp571.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
31 WRIT PETITION NO. 571 OF 2021
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17139 OF 2022
IN WP/571/2021
AMBADAS ARJUN KADAM DIED THR LRS GANGARAM
AMBADAS KADAM AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Bhumkar R.P.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mrs. M.L. Sangit
Advocate for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Bhadekar D.R.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 07th MAY, 2024.
PER COURT :
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
matter may be disposed of at this stage.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
2 31wp571.21.odt
initially, the suit land was 'Inam' land. The father of the
petitioners, Ambadas and others were tenants of the said land.
He further submits that the occupancy price was determined.
However, thereafter the 'Inam' land Act was abolished on
01.07.1960. Since the 'Inam' land was abolished, the said land
went to the landlord, and the landlord became its owner.
4. It is further argued for the petitioners, before the
abolition of the said Act, the father of the petitioners and others
have paid the occupancy price, and they have acquired the title.
However, due to illiteracy, they purchased the suit land through
a registered sale deed in 1966. Therefore, the leave of the
Competent Authority to transfer the land was not required. The
Divisional Commissioner has not considered this material
aspect. Both orders impugned before this court are ex-parte.
The learned Additional Commissioner reserved the case for
judgment on 14.08.2018 and passed the order on 10.02.2020.
Passing such a delayed judgment is not the judgment in the eye
of law. The judgment should be delivered in a reasonable time.
Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
3 31wp571.21.odt
5. He further argued that the points raised by the
petitioners were not considered in the order by the learned Dy.
Divisional Commissioner dated 10.02.2022. It was a mechanical
order. The substantial issues involved in the petition were not
discussed. Therefore, the said order is without reason. The
order without reason is not the order in the eye of law.
Therefore, the matter may be remitted to the learned Dy.
Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, for deciding on afresh or
the learned Dy. Collector may be directed to hear the matter on
merit.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the
learned Deputy Collector, Latur, has passed an order on
28.09.2022 and disposed of the application by observing that it
has been disposed of subject to the decision of this Writ Petition
No. 571 of 2021.
7. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that
Section 6 of the Hyderabad Inam Abolish and Cash Grant Act,
1954 has been amended in 2015, wherein it has been added
that if there are transactions without permission from the
4 31wp571.21.odt
Competent Authority, the purchaser may apply to the
Competent Authority to seek post facto permission by depositing
'Najrana'. The petitioners had filed such an application before
the learned Deputy Collector on 16.09.2020. Therefore, they
admitted that permission was essential.
8. After going through the order of the Deputy Collector,
which was the first order dated 30.08.1991, it appears that the
present petitioners appeared in that petition and filed a written
statement but remained absent. They did not argue the matter.
Therefore, the order was passed against them. The Additional
Divisional Commissioner passed an order about two years after
reserving the appeal for judgment. That order is also without
reason.
9. The Petitioner has a case that no such permission is
required since the 'Inam' land was abolished; therefore, his sale
deed is legal and valid.
10. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for the present
respondent No. 4 submits that in view of the amendment to the
5 31wp571.21.odt
2015 Act, such permission is essential for the 'Inam' land.
11. The crucial point, whether permission is essential for
purchasing the land in question is essential after the abolition
of the Inam Lands Act, has not been determined by the
Competent Authority, therefore, by keeping all these points open
to both sides, the order of the Deputy Collector passed in file
No. 1989/DSK/Inam/92 dtd. 30th August 1991, and the order of
the Additional Divisional Commissioner dated 10.02.2020
passed in Prakaran/No./2011-Mashaka-Bhus-Inam-Kavi-CR-75
stands quashed and set aside.
12. The petition is remanded to the Deputy Collector,
Latur, for a fresh decision by restoring file
No.1989/DESK/INAM-92.
13. Both parties shall appear before the learned SDO,
Latur, on 30.05.2024.
14. The Deputy Collector (Land Records)Latur shall grant
both sides an opportunity to either amend the application or file
6 31wp571.21.odt
additional Written Statements and decide the applications
within six months from their appearance.
15. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed and
disposed of.
16. Consequently, all Civil Applications are also disposed
of.
( S. G. MEHARE )
JUDGE
mahajansb/
