Bombay High Court
Murlidhar Keshav Dixit And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 13 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:29219
-1-
wp9715.22.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9715 OF 2022
1. Shaikh Afzal Shaikh Budhan
age 51 years, occ. Agril
r/o Deolai, Aurangabad.
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Riyazkhan s/o Faradkhan
age 56 years, occ. Agril,
r/o Deolai, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Alatfkhan s/o Faridkhan
age 45 years, occ. Agril
r/o Deolai, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Shaikh Mohsin Shaikh Rahemtulla
age 40 years, occ. Agril,
r/o Deolai, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. ....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through its Principal Secretary
Forest and Revenue Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner
No. 2, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
3. The Additional Collector,
Aurangabad.
4A The Deputy Collector (General Admn.)
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
-2-
wp9715.22.odt
4B The Deputy Collector (Land and Record)
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .....Respondents
Mr. G. K. Naik Thigle, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S. Shete,
Advocate for Caveator.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11740 OF 2022
1. Murlidhar Keshav Dixit
age 88 years, occ. nil/pensioner
r/o Rishikesh Apt. Gananjay Society
Kothrud, Pune 29
2. Heramb s/o Shripad Dixit
age 58 years, occ. Business
r/o State Bank Colony
near Tapar Hostel, Amravati
3. Manjushah d/o Shripad Dixit
age 54 years, occ. Household
r/o State Bank Colony, near
Tapar Hostel, Amravati
Through power of attorney Balbhim s/o
Marutirao patodekar
age 84 years, occ. nil/pensioner
r/o Plot No. 26, Rachnakar Colony
Station Road, Aurangabad .....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary
Forest and Revenue Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
2. The Additional Divisional
Commissioner 2, Aurangabad Division
Aurangabad.
-3-
wp9715.22.odt
3. The Additional Collector
Aurangabad (General Administration)
4. The Deputy Collector (L.R.)
Aurangabad. Dist. Aurangabad.
5. The Tahsildar
Aurangabad. .....Respondents
Mr. Shakil U. Shaikh, Advocate holding for Mr. S. B. Ghute, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S. Shete,
Advocate for Caveator.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12182 OF 2022
Amit Arvind Agarwal .....Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Divisional Commissioner
Aurangabad
Office at Commissioner Office building
at Aurangabad.
2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.
Office at Collector office building
at Auranbad.
3. The Deputy Collector/Administration
Aurangabad.
Office at Collector office building
at Aurangabad.
4. The Tehsildar at Aurangabad
Office at Tehsil Office, Aurangabad.
5. The Revenue Circle Inspector
-4-
wp9715.22.odt
Office at Revenue Department
Collector Office Building
At Aurangabad.
6. The Talathi, Sajja Satara
Ofifce at Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
.....Respondents
Mr. Shaikh Mujtaba Gulam Mustafa, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S.Shete,
Advocate for Caveator.
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10895 OF 2022
1, Tukaram Kishan Khedkar
age 78 years, occ. Agriculture
r/o Sutgirni Chowk, Garkheda
Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Sachin s/o Tukaram Khedkar
age 46 years, occ. Business
r/o Sahyadri Hills, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Sushil s/o Tukaram Khedkar
age 45 years, occ. Business
r/o as above.
4. Vaishali w/o Kalyan Dangode
age 41 years, occ. Household
r/o D-5 Tapdiya Nagar, Aurangabad
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
5. Anand s/o Kalyan Danode
age 40 years, occ. Business
r/o as above.
6. Sau. Sharda s/o Umesh Navthar
age 37 years, occ. Household
-5-
wp9715.22.odt
r/o Flat No. 10, Wdkar Corner
Hindu Rashtra Chowk, Garkheda
Aurangabad.
7. Santosh s/o Kaisanrao Kulkarni
age 44 years, occ. Services
r/o Row House No. 1-4, Plot No. 13
SamarthREsidency N-7, Cidco,
Aurangabad.
8. Chandrakant s/o Bhagwandas Asrani
age 46 years, occ. Business
r/o Flat NO. H - A16, Raygad Building
Tirupati Enclave, Ulkanagari
Garkheda, Aurangabad.
9. Pradipkumar s/o Narayandas Tharani
age 46 years, occ. Service
r/o H. No. 1-34-208 Bajarang Dal Mill
Jalna Dist.Jalna
10. Rupali Ajit Koranne
age 42 years, occ. Household
r.o Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
11. Vasudeo s/o manohar Deshpande
age 54 years, occ. Service
r/o Flat No. 7, shreya nagar, Aurangabad.
12. Sau. Pooja w/o Vasudeo Deshpande
age 49 years, occ. Service
r/o as above.
13. Kakasaheb s/o Dayaram Patil
age 47 years, occ. Service
r/o D17, Saujanya Nagar, Balaji Nagar
Aurangabad.
14. Sau. Survarna w/o Shrikant Naik
age 39 years, occ. Insurance agent
r/o A-2/141 Gajanan Nagar, Aurangabad.
-6-
wp9715.22.odt
15. Sau. Subhangi w/o Raghunath Madhekar
age 56 years, occ. Household
r/o Venkatesh Bhavan, 2-8-30 S.T. Colony
Fazalpura Aurangabad.
16. Vinod s/o Kakasaehb Gayake
age 34 years, occ. Service
r/o R-43, T10, N-7, Cidoc
Aurangabad.
17. Malkhare Constructions
Through Shashank Subhash Malkhare
Near Yout Hostel, Baba Petrol Pump
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.
18. Sau. Meena w/o Naresh Talwani
age 47 years, occ. Household
r/o Flat No. A-5, Pagariya Residency
Vedant Nagar, Station road,
Aurangabad.
19. Rajesh s/o Suganamal Chahetinya
age 40 years, occ. Business
r/o Kumar Nagar, Dhule
District Dhule.
20. Shri Rajkumar s/o Narayandas Tharani
age 51 years, occ. Business
r/o Near Bajarang Dal Mill, Jalna
21. Mukhesh s/o Biharilal Motwani
age 33 years, occ. Business
r/o Plot No. G-19, Sindhi Colony
Aurangabad.
22. Sau. Pratibha w/o Mansubrao More
age 40 years, occ. Household
r/o Gurudatta Housing Society
Aurangabad.
-7-
wp9715.22.odt
23. Sau. Renuka Ganesh Kulkarni
age 34 years, occ. Household
r/o N-7, Cidco,Aurangabad. .....Petitioners
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Principal Secretary
Revenue and Forest Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Divisional Commissioner
Aurnagabad Division,Aurangabad.
3. The Additional Collector
Collector Office, Aurangabad.
4. The Deputy Collector (General Administration)
Aurangabad Collector office, Aurangabad.
5. The Tahsildar
Tahsil Office, Aurangabad
Tq & Dist. Aurangabad.
6. The Circle Officer,
Aurangabad.
7. Talathi Sajja, Satara
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
8. Prashant s/o Bansilal Bamb
age major, occ. MLA
r/o Satara (Khandebacha)
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
9. Laxman s/o Piraji Palaskar
age major, occ. agril .....Respondents
r/o Satara (Khandobacha)
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
10. Pramilabai w/o Tulshiram Palaskar
-8-
wp9715.22.odt
Age major,, occ. Household
r/o as above.
11. Anuradha w/o Tuakram Ambekar
age 33 years, occ. Service
r/o Sweta Apartment, Flat No. 2
Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad.
12. Sau. Meena w/o Madhukar Sahane
age 42 years, occ. Household
r/o N-5 Cidco, Aurangabad.
13. Madhukar s/o Sadashhivrao Sahane
age 47 years, occ. Insurance agent
r/o N-5 Cidco, Aurangabad.
14. Nitin s/o Rajaram Rathod
age 44 years, occ. Service
r/o Ellora Complex, Town Center
Cidco, Aurangabad.
15. Parvez Khan Shehjad Khan
age 30 years, occ. Business
r/o Unnus Colony, Aurangabad.
16. Rajendra s/o Bhanudas Bhosale
age 48 years, occ. Service
r/o Plot No. 1, Deolali Road,
Aurangabad.
17. Murlidhar s/o Keshav Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Rushikesh Apartment, B Flat No. 2
Gagjay Society, Unit No. 4
Kothrud, Pune
18. Vijay w/o Shripad Dixit,
age major, occ. Service
r/o house no. 23, State Bank Colony
Tapar Hotel Bajarpeth
Amravati
-9-
wp9715.22.odt
19. Asha w/o Damodhar Dixit
age major, occ. Household
r/o Kuranan Nagar, Bhajimadie
Aurangabad.
20. Sanjay w/o Moreshwar Dixit
age major, occ. Household
r/o Juna, Ravindra Vada
opp. Khullya Murlidhar Mandir
Sadashivpeth, Pune.
21. Kalpana w/o Bhalchand Dixit
occ. Household
r/o Radhamohan Colony, Aurangabad.
22. Arvind s/o Narayan Dixit
age major, occ. Business
r/o Laxmi Colony, Gangapur
Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad.
23. Girish s/o Narayan Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Stara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
24. Suhas /so Purshottam Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o 17, Badlapurkar Chal, Chandvilla
Agra, Road Shivaji Chowk, Kallyan
Dist. Thane.
25. Vinaya w/o Satish Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
26. Amol s/o Satish Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Tulshibagwalle Colony
Sahkarnagar, Pune.
27. Pratibha w/o Subhash Saptarshi
- 10 -
wp9715.22.odt
age major, occ. Service
r/o 58, Vovat Apartment
Sahkarnagar, Pune.
28. Shamla w/o Yshwant Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o 3/27, Pitambar Willa,
Pratam Tokies, Kolbad, Thane.
29. Vishvas s/o Yahvant Dixit
age major, occ. Services r/o 3/27, Pitamber Willa,
Pratap Tokies, Kolbad, Thane.
30. Sujata w/o Jayraj Parulekar
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Manorama Cooprative Society
KRV Hospital, Brahman Society
Nopada Thane (Pachim)
31. Shaikh Mohsin Shaikh Rehmtulla
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Deolai, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
32. Altafkhan Faridkhan
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Deolai, Dist. Aurangabad.
33 Heramb s/o Shripad Dixit
age major, occ. Service,
r/o House No. 23, State Bank Colony
Toper Hotel Rajapeth
Amravati
34. Manjusha w/o Shripad Dixit (Kute)
age major, occ. Service,
r/o777, Shatinagar,Raypur
Chatisgad.
35. Prakash s/o Moreshwar Dixit
c/o Prabhawati w/o Ramchandra Dixit
age major
- 11 -
wp9715.22.odt
r/o Surana Nagar, Bhajimandie
Aurangabad.
36. Yashwant s/ o Gangdhar Dixit
c/o Jayant kardikar
age major, r/o Juna Ravindrawada
Opp. Khulla Mrulidhar Mandir Sadashivpeth
Pune.
37. Malti w/o Narayan Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Laxmi Colony, Gangapur
Tq.Gangapur, Dist. Aurangabad.
38. Manjusha w/o Ashok Ranade
age major, occ. Services r/o Stara
Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
39. Ella w/o Vighnarajendra Sane
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Navjivan Colony, Hudco
N-8, Aurangabad.
40. Sadhana Jayant Gadre
age major, occ. Service,
r/o G-6, Sumer Castel, pales Mill Compound
Kolmbad Road, Tq. & Dist. Thane.
41. Alok s/o Satish Dixit
age major, occ. Service
r/o Tulshibagwalle Colony,
Sahakarnagar, Pune.
42. Anuradha w/o Gurnath Velankar
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara. Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
43. Saroj Makrand Nagapure
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satar, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
- 12 -
wp9715.22.odt
44. Nandkumar s/o Yashwant Dixit
age major, occ. Service,
r/o B=6, Shahakar Nivak, Professor
Agashe Pat, Potugjji Charchya, Dadar Mumbai
45. Anuradha w/o Kukunda Ingle
age major, occ. Service
r/o D-41, Ganadhiraj Society
Midhanar Road, Mulund (East)
Mumbai.
46. Shaikh Afjal Shaikh Budhan
age major, occ. Service
r/o Deolai, Dist. Aurangabad.
47. Riyaj Kkhan Faridkhan
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Deolai, Dist. Aurangabad.
48. Jitendra s/o Sahantilal Mutha
age major. Occ. Service,
r/o Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
49. Rajendrasingh s/o tarasingh Jabinda
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
50. Narendrasingh s/o Tarasingh Jabinda
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara, Tq. & dist. Aurangabad.
51. Balaji s/o Namdeo Bhuke
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara. TQ. & Dist. Aurangabad.
52. Purushototam s/o Gangadhar Dixit
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
53. Amit s/o Arvind Agrawal
age major, occ. Service,
- 13 -
wp9715.22.odt
r/o Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad.
54. Narayan s/o Gangadhar Dixit
age major, occ. Service,
r/o Satara, Tq.& Dist. Aurangabad.
55. Ajantha Urban Cooperative Bank
Aurangabad. Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents.
Mr. D. A. Mane, Advocate holding for Mr. M. D. Gitte, Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.
Mr. V. D. Sapakal, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr. S. S. Shete,
Advocate for Respondent No. 9.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 13th OCTOBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Since these
Petitions involve same question of fact and law, by consent, they are
heard together and decided by this common judgment.
2. These Petitions take exception to the order dated
06.06.2022 passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner in
vkjvksvkj@MsLd buke@08&09&10@2018 confirming the order dated
28.12.2017 passed by the Additional Collector which confirmed the
order dated 30.05.2014 passed by the Deputy Collector.
- 14 -
wp9715.22.odt
3. These Petitions are filed by the legal heirs of Inamdars
and their successors in title in respect of lands Survey no. 6/1 and
6/2 situated at Satara, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad (for short 'subject
lands'). It is the case of the Petitioners that in the previous round of
litigation Mr. Palaskar and others claimed themselves to be the
tenants in respect of the subject lands and had initiated proceedings
under the provisions of Hyderabad Abolition Inam and Cash Grants
Act, 1954 (for short 'Act of 1954'). In the said proceeding, order came
to be passed on 30.07.1991 by the Deputy Collector, Aurangabad
holding Asaram Chopde as occupant and Narayan Chopde and
others having occupancy rights in respect of Survey No.6 to the
extent of 18 Acres and 23 R land. Occupancy price was determined
at Rs. 720/- which was sought to be deposited and accordingly
deposited. Being aggrieved by the said order, Appeal came to be filed
before the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Additional
Commissioner, by order dated 13.08.1992 allowed the Appeals filed
by both sides and relegated the matter back to the Deputy Collector,
Aurangabad by setting aside order dated 30.07.1991. On fresh
enquiry, the Deputy Collector confirmed the order dated 30.07.1991
and exception was taken thereto before the Additional Commissioner,
Aurangabad unsuccessfully. Being aggrieved by the said judgment
- 15 -
wp9715.22.odt
proceeding came to be filed before the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue),
who by order dated 21.01.2004, allowed the Appeal filed by the
Inamdars and their successors and set aside the order dated
31.10.2001 granting occupancy right to the tenants. Tulsiram
Palaskar and Laxman took exception to the said order by filing Writ
Petition No. 1486/2004. This Court, by judgment dated 10.03.2004
dismissed the Petition. SLP filed against the said order is also
dismissed by Supreme Court.
4. It is the case of the Petitioners that in this backdrop local
MLA moved an Application/complaint dated 13.12.2010 in respect of
the subject lands. He had a grievance that the case of the tenants
was not properly presented and which has led to passing of adverse
orders against them. He alleged dereliction of duties by revenue
authorities. On the basis of this complaint, proceeding was initiated
by the Deputy Collector, (General Administration). In the said
proceeding, the Deputy Collector (General Administration) passed
order dated 30.05.2014 and directed possession of the subject lands
to be taken. While passing this order, it is held by the said Authority
that without there being right with the purchaser of the land,
transaction of sale in respect of the land was done. It is further held
- 16 -
wp9715.22.odt
that as per Section 6(2) of the Act of 1954, the Inamdar has not
deposited occupancy price and therefore, in order to avoid further
complications such order came to be passed. This order was
challenged by filing Appeal before the Additional Collector, which
came to be rejected by order dated 28.12.2017. Challenge to the said
order before the Divisional Commissioner was unsuccessful as by
order dated 06.06.2022 the Divisional Commissioner rejected the
Appeal.
5. Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that this is a
proxy litigation initiated on behalf of the tenants at the behest of
MLA. It is his submission that the authorities below have committed
error in holding that the Inam in respect of the subject properties is
covered by Section 6 of the Act of 1954 and not by Section 5 thereof.
It is his contention that this Court, in judgment dated 10.03.2004,
has held that it is a 'Madad Mash Inam' which is personal inam and
it is perpetual and alienable. It is his submission that the land
comprised in such Inam is covered by Section 5 of the Act of 1954
which does not contemplate any occupancy price to be paid by the
Inamdar to the Government. It is his submission that this provision
contemplates payment of occupancy price only by permanent tenants
- 17 -
wp9715.22.odt
and other tenants. It is his submission that once it is held that
occupancy right in respect of the land comprise in Inam which is
alienable Section 6 has no application thereto and the authorities
below have committed serious error in applying the said provisions to
the present case. It is argued that the contention of Petitioners was
not accepted about application of Section 6 on the ground that no
evidence was led to that effect by ignoring the findings recorded by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 1406/2004 with regard to the nature
of Inam to be Madad Mash. He drew attention of the Court to the
orders impugned indicating that this issue was raised specifically
before the authorities and which has not been dealt with in
accordance with law and order came to be passed only for the reason
that MLA insisted and pressurised for the same. To support this
submission, he drew attention of the Court to the initial report of
Authority which shows that no action is contemplated in the report
and the follow up compliance done by the MLA. It is his submission
that in absence of application of Section 6 of the Act of 1954, it could
not be said that any breach has been committed by the Inamdars
either in obtaining non-agricultural permission or even for creating
third party interest in the subject property which requires no
permission of State Government in view of Section 29 of Maharashtra
- 18 -
wp9715.22.odt
Land Revenue Code (for short 'MLRC'). According to him, the subject
lands would be 'Class I land' and not 'Class II land' and it is rightly
so categorised in revenue record. It is argued that being Class I land
and Inam in perpetuity and alienable, question of obtainment of
permission in respect of transaction of sale does not arise. It is his
further submission that in any case, the sale-deeds entered into
between the parties could not have been said to be null and void nor
the permission granted while converting subject land from
agricultural to non-agricultural could have been assailed before
Authority under Act of 1954. To support his submissions, he placed
reliance on following judgments :-
(i) Vitthal Kondhalkar vs. State of Maharashtra and others
1981 Bom CR 32.
(ii) Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar
(2001) 7 SCC 318.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for original tenants and learned
AGP resisted the said contentions. It is argued by learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants that it is immaterial at
whose instance the proceedings are initiated as it would be open for
the authorities even to take suo moto action if any non-compliance of
the provisions of the Act are found. In this regard, reference is made
- 19 -
wp9715.22.odt
to Section 2-A of the Act which deals with the power of the State
Government or authorised officer to decide certain questions relating
to Inam and Appeals, and the act of invocation of suo moto powers
which cannot be faulted with. It is his submission that Section 3 of
the Act clearly shows that on abolition of Inam, the property vests
with the State Government free from any encumbrances, and in such
circumstances unless there is evidence to indicate that there was re-
grant, question of there being any right with the Inamdar to transfer
the subject land to the third party does not arise. It is his
submission that any such transaction would be null and void and
hence rightly being held so by the authorities below. He however
fairly accepts that the subject lands comprise of Madadmash Inam
which it is held in perpetual and alienable. It is his submission that
irrespective of the said fact, the provisions of Section 6 only would
have application to the present case and in view of the said
provisions more particularly, Section 6(2), unless Inamdar pays
occupancy price he is not entitled to any rights in respect of subject
lands. According to him, unless Inamdar shows that the land is re-
granted to him, question of Inamdar having right to occupy the land
or to transfer the same does not arise. He sought to make reference
to the rules framed under the Act of 1954 which contemplate the
- 20 -
wp9715.22.odt
period within which the occupation price is required to be paid. It is
his submission that Sections 5 and 6 are not independent provisions
but are required to be read conjointly and hence even if it is accepted
that subject inam is Madadmash it cannot lead to exclusion of
applicability of Section 6 to the case in hand. To support his
submissions, he has placed reliance on judgment in case of Amrutrao
Shankarrao Deshmukh and another vs. Laxman Tulshiram Powar and
others, 2011(6) Bom.C.R. 13.
7. Learned AGP also resisted the Petitions on the ground
that admittedly the subject land which was Inam land, the Inam
thereto was abolished with coming into force the Act of 1954. He also
drew attention of the Court to Section 3 of the Act which shows that
on abolition of Inam all lands stand vested in the State Government
and thereby rights of all other persons stand extinguished. To
support his submissions, he placed reliance on the entries taken in
the revenue record indicating vesting of subject lands in the
Government. It is his submission that once the land vests with the
State Government, the question of any exercise of right by Inamdar
over the same including occupancy right would not arise. It is his
submission that whether the complaint is made by the MLA or any
- 21 -
wp9715.22.odt
other person should not make any difference as it is open for the
authorities to even take suo moto cognizance of any non-compliance
of the provisions and definitely when it was so pointed out.
8. In the beginning it is made clear that the authorities
under the Act of 1954 under Section 2-A could exercise powers when
called upon or even suo moto. The complaint/grievance made by
MLA therefore could not be termed as proxy litigation as sought to be
canvassed on behalf of Petitioners as being representative of people it
would be his duty to raise grievance of people. Thus, without getting
influenced by the fact as to at whose instance the proceedings are
initiated by authorities, the merit of order is considered in the light of
facts and provisions of the Act of 1954.
9. At the outset, it would be necessary to take into
consideration the scheme and relevant provisions of the Act of 1954
in order to appreciate the submissions made across the bar by rival
sides. The Act aims at abolition of Inams and to provide for
consequences thereof. Section 3 makes provision with regard to
abolition and vesting of Inam and consequences thereof. As per
Section 3(1), all Inams to which the Act is made applicable under
- 22 -
wp9715.22.odt
sub-section 2-A of Section 1 of this Act, shall be deemed to have been
abolished and shall vest in the State. It further provides for the effect
and consequences of such vesting. According to Clause (a) the
provisions of Land Revenue Act as specified therein for the purpose of
land revenue shall apply to the said Inams. According to Clause (b)
all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim,
permanent tenant and tenant in respect of the inam land, other than
the interests expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act shall
stand vested in the State free from all encumbrances. Clause (c)
specifies that all such Inam lands shall be liable to payment of land
revenue. Clause (d) entitles the State to receive all rents and land
revenue in respect of the said Inams. Land revenue and arrears
thereof even becomes recoverable from the amount of compensation
payable to the Inamdar in view of Clause (e). Provision is made in
Clause (g) with regard to the entitlement of Inamdar to receive
compensation from the Government in case of cash grants.
Relationship with regard to the Inam land between Inamdar and
Kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant or tenant stands extinguished in
view of Clause (h). as per Clause (j), in case of Inam to which Act
applies under Sub-section 2-A of Section 1, Inamdar stands released
of the liability to render services, if any. According to Sub-section (3),
- 23 -
wp9715.22.odt
Sub-sections (1) and (2) shall not operate as bar to the recovery by
the inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of
vesting. Section 4 deals with abolition of cash grant and
consequences thereof. Sections 7 to 10 deal with the method of
awarding compensation for abolition of cash grant etc to which we
are not concerned in the present proceeding. Occupancy right in
respect of Inam lands are provided in Sections 5 and 6. Different
provisions are made in respect of such occupancy rights where the
Inam held in perpetual and which is alienable to which Section 5
applies and Inam from land to which provisions of Section 5 do not
apply, Section 6 has application. The other provisions deal with the
powers of the authorities under the Act to decide certain matters as
contemplated by Section 2-A thereof.
10. It would be also relevant to take note of certain
definitions as provided therein. Section 2(c) defines Inam means
land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any
Jagirdar with or without the condition of service and whether or not
coupled with the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue
thereon. Section 2(d) deals with definition of 'Inamdar' meaning a
person holding an inam or a share therein. According to Section 2(g),
- 24 -
wp9715.22.odt
occupied land means Inam land which is not uncultivated land,
waste land etc and which is in actual or constructive possession of
Inamdar. These provisions indicate that not only actual but even
constructive possession of the land would be sufficient to consider
the land to be occupied land. The entire perusal of the Act indicates
that it deals with the issues covered therein i.e. in respect of the
occupation of the land in question and applicability and
determination of occupancy price as applicable in Sections 5 and 6
thereto. As recorded above, it also deals with determination of
amount of compensation in respect of abolition of cash grants.
Except for these, there is no other provision which deals in other
subject matter under the Act.
11. This becomes more clear from the fact that Sub-Section
2-A provides for the powers of the State Government or authorised
officer to decide certain questions related to Inam and appeals. It
would be necessary to reproduce said provision which reads thus :-
[2-A Power of State Government or authorised officer
to decide certain questions relating to inams and
appeals :
(1) If any question arises :
(i) Whether any land is an inam,
- 25 -
wp9715.22.odt
(ii) Whether any inam is held with or without
conditions of service and whether or not coupled with
the remission of the whole or part of the land revenue,
(iii) Whether any inam is a community service inam or
watan,
(iv) whether a commutation settlement in respect of
any watan has or has not been effected,
(v) whether any land held as inam is or is not alienable
without the permission of the competent authority, or
(vi) whether any person is a kabiz-e-kadim, permanent
tenant or tenant, the State Government or an officer
authorised by that Government shall decide the
question.
[(2)(I) x x x
(II) x x x
(3) x x x
(4) x x x
This provision therefore makes it abundantly clear that
except for subject matters described in Clauses (i) to (vi), the
authorities would get no jurisdiction. It is relevant to note that as per
Sub-section (1), if any question arises i.e. (i) to (vi), authorised officer
shall decide the same. Thus, any other question than the one
- 26 -
wp9715.22.odt
covered by this provision would be beyond jurisdiction of such
authority.
12. It would not be out of context to make reference to
certain provisions of the MLRC more particularly Chapter III thereof
which deals with lands. Section 29 categorises classes of persons
holding land and there are three such categories of occupants; (i)
Occupants - Class I, (ii) Occupants - Class II and (iii) Government
lessees. As per Section 29(2), Class I shall consist of persons who
hold unalienated land in perpetuity and without any restrictions on
the right to transfer. Occupant Class II holds unalienated land in
perpetuity but subject to restriction on the land to transfer. This
provision makes it clear that in case of Occupant Class I, the
occupant holds unalienated land in perpetuity without any
restriction on the right to transfer meaning thereby transfer of the
property can be effected without sanction/permission of the
authorities under the said Act.
13. At this stage, it needs to be recorded that the previous
round of litigation though was pertaining to the issue raised by the
persons claiming themselves to be the tenant in respect of occupancy
- 27 -
wp9715.22.odt
rights of subject lands, in the said proceeding an issue was decided
as to the nature of Inam in question. In this regard, reference can be
made to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1406/2004
wherein it is held that the Inam in question is Madad Mash. There is
no dispute made by learned counsel for the rival parties with regard
to the fact that Madad Mash is an Inam which is in perpetual and
alienable. Once the fact is not in dispute that the lands comprised in
Inam is in perpetual and alienable, it is necessary to see which
provision of the Act would apply to such case.
14. It would be relevant to take note of the relevant
provisions in this regard, which read thus :-
5. Occupancy rights in respect of lands
comprised in an inam held in perpetuity and
which was alienable:
1) In the case of an occupied land comprised in an
inam including a community service, inam or watan,
which under the terms of the grant or commutation
settlement was to continue in perpetuity and was
alienable without the permission of any competent
authority:
(i) if it is in the possession of a kabiz-e-kadim, or of a
permanent tenant or tenant holding from the inamdar,
such kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant or tenant, and
- 28 -
wp9715.22.odt
(ii) in other cases, the inamdar shall be primarily liable
to the State Government for the payment of land
revenue due in respect of the land held by him and
shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4)
and (5), be entitled to all the rights and be liable to all
the obligations in respect of such land as an occupant
under the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the rules
made thereunder.
2) In the case of land referred to in clause (i) of sub-
section (1) :
(a) the permanent tenant shall be liable to pay
occupancy price equal to twice the amount of the full
assessment of the land in his possession; and
(b) the tenant shall be liable to pay occupancy price
equal to six times the amount of the full assessment of
the land in his possession
to the inamdar within the prescribed period and in the
manner provided in sub-section (3):
Provided that in the case of a tenant, the
occupancy price may be paid in three equal instalments
at such intervals as may be prescribed.
3) The permanent tenant or, as the case may be, the
tenant shall deposit the amount of the occupancy price
payable by him under sub-section (2), with the Collector
within the period prescribed under that sub-section.
- 29 -
wp9715.22.odt
4) If the permanent tenant or the tenant fails to
deposit the amount of the occupancy price under sub-
section (3), it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land
revenue and if it is not so recovered within a period of
one year from the expiry of the period prescribed under
sub-section (2), the permanent tenant, or as the case
may be, the tenant shall be deemed to be unlawfully
occupying Government land and shall be liable to be
summarily evicted therefrom in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
5) On the deposit under sub-section (3), or recovery
under sub-section (4), of the entire amount of the
occupancy price payable by a permanent tenant or
tenant, it shall be paid to the inamdar in the prescribed
manner.
6) Where under sub-section (4), a permanent tenant
or tenant is deemed to be unlawfully occupying any
land, such land shall be deemed to be vested in the
inamdar as the occupant thereof free from
encumbrances, if any created thereon by the permanent
tenant, or as the case may be the tenant and the
inamdar shall be primarily liable to the State
Government for the payment of the land revenue in
respect of such land in accordance with the provisions
- 30 -
wp9715.22.odt
of the Land Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli and the rules made
thereunder.
15. A bare perusal of this provision clearly indicates that this
provision contemplates payment of occupancy price by permanent
tenant or other tenant as prescribed therein. Such occupancy price
becomes payable to the Inamdar and it is open for the tenant to
deposit such occupancy price within prescribed period as per the
rules with the Collector. This provision does not contemplate
payment of any occupancy price by Inamdar to the State
Government. Most importantly in case of failure on the part of tenant
to pay occupancy price in time, he is deemed to be unlawfully
occupying the land and in that case as per Sub-section (6) such land
shall be deemed to be vested in the Inamdar free from all
encumbrances. Thus, Inamdar becomes liable for payment of land
revenue. Thus, the scheme clearly indicates that the lands
comprised in an Inam would not vest in Government in case tenant
fails to pay occupancy price or unlawfully occupies the land but it
would vest in the Inamdar. The possession of the land therefore
would be with the Inamdar in such case.
- 31 -
wp9715.22.odt
16. As compared to the above provision, if provisions of
Section 6 of the Act of 1954 are perused, then it clearly states that it
applies to the occupancy rights in respect of lands to which Section 5
does not apply. It would therefore be necessary to take note of the
said provision which reads as under :-
6. Occupancy rights in respect of occupied lands to
which section 5 does not apply.--
(1) In the case of an occupied land comprised in an inam
other than land to which the provisions of section 5
apply,--
(a) where such land is in the possession of the inamdar, or
kabiz-e-kadim or of a permanent tenant or tenant holding
from the inamdar, then such inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim,
permanent tenant or tenant shall, in respect of the land
which is in his possession, be primarily liable to the State
Government for the payment of land revenue and shall,
subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5),
be entitled to all the rights and be liable to all the
obligations as an occupant in respect of such land under
the Land Revenue A ct, 1317 Fasli and the rules made
thereunder;
(b) the rest of the land, in respect of which under clause (a)
neither the inamdar nor the kabiz-e-kadim nor the
permanent tenant nor the tenant is primarily liable for
- 32 -
wp9715.22.odt
the payment of land revenue, shall be at the disposal of
Government and any person in possession of such land
shall be deemed to be unlawfully occupying Government
land and shall be liable to be evicted therefrom in
accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenue Act,
1317 Fasli.
(2) In respect of the land for which the inamdar, kabiz-e-
kadim, permanent tenant or tenant is liable under sub-
section (1) for the payment of land revenue,--
(a) the inamdar or, as the case may be, the kabiz-e-kadim,
shall be liable to pay an occupancy price equal to six
times the amount of the full assessment of the land,
(b) the permanent tenant shall be liable to pay an
occupancy price equal to eight times the amount of the full
assessment of the land, and
(c) the tenant shall be liable to pay an occupancy price
equal to twelve times the full assessment of the land, to
the State Government within the prescribed period either
in lump sum or by such instalments as may be
prescribed.
[(3) (a) On or after the commencement of the Hyderabad
Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants (Amendment) Act,
2015 (hereinafter, in this sub-section, referred to as "the
commencement date"), the occupancy of Madad Mash
Inam lands held on the new and impartible tenure
(Occupants-Class II) may be transferred by the occupant
- 33 -
wp9715.22.odt
for agricultural purpose, and no previous sanction or no
objection certificate from the Collector or any other
competent authority shall be necessary for such transfer.
After such transfer, occupancy of such land shall be
continued to be held by such transferee occupant on new
and impartible tenure (Occupants-Class II), in accordance
with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966 :
Provided that, any such occupancy held on new and
impartible tenure (Occupants-Class II) may, on or after the
commencement date, be converted into Occupants-Class I
by the occupant, by making payment of [five per cent.] of
the amount of the current market value of such land to the
Government as Nazarana, and after such conversion,
such land shall be held by the occupant as Occupants-
Class I, in accordance with the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Provided further that, on or after the commencement
date, if any occupancy, held on new and impartible
tenure (Occupants-Class II) has, without the prior
sanction of the Collector or any other competent
authority and without payment of the amount equal to
five per cent of the current market value of such land],
been transferred by the occupant for non-agricultural use,
such transfer may be regularised on payment of an
amount equal to 4[five per cent. of the current market
- 34 -
wp9715.22.odt
value of such land] as Nazarana, and an amount equal to
fifty per cent. of such sum as a penalty, and on such
payment, the occupant shall hold the land as Occupants-
Class I, in accordance with the provisions of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
(b) Before the commencement date, if any occupancy of
Madad Mash Inam lands, held on new and impartible
tenure (Occupants-Class II) has already, without previous
sanction or no objection certificate from the Collector or
any other competent authority, been transferred by the
occupant, for agricultural purpose, such transfer may be
regularised without payment of any sum as Nazarana, on
the production of registered instruments such as sale
deed, gift deed, etc., as a proof thereof, for such transfer.
After such regularisation, the occupancy of such land
shall be deemed to be held by such transferee occupant
as an Occupants-Class II, in accordance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 :
Provided that, before the commencement date, if any such
occupancy of Madad Mash Inam lands, held on new and
impartible tenure (Occupants-Class II), has already,
without prior sanction of the Collector or any other
competent authority, been transferred by the occupant for
non-agricultural use, such transfer may be regularised on
payment of an amount equal to [five per cent.] of the
market value of such land on the date of the order of
- 35 -
wp9715.22.odt
regularisation as Nazarana, and an amount equal to ten
per cent. of such sum as a penalty, and on such payment,
the land shall be deemed to be held by such transferee
occupant as Occupants-Class I, in accordance with the
provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966,
with effect from the date of such order.
(c) The provisions of clauses (a) and (b) shall not be
applicable to,--
(i) the property permanently dedicated as waqf which is
administered under the provisions of the Waqf Act, 1995 ;
(ii) the Khidmat Mash (Service Inam) lands ;
(iii) the Madad Mash Inam lands, part of which is given
for Khidmat (service) of devasthan subject to the terms
and conditions of muntakhab (sanad) ;
(iv) the original Government lands granted by the then
Government :
Provided that, the Collector shall verify that the
muntakhab (sanad) of the Madad Mash Inam land does
not fall in sub-clauses (i) to (iv).]
(4) If any person liable to pay to the State Government the
occupancy price under sub-section (2) fails to pay the
same within the period prescribed under that sub-section,
it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue and if
it is not recovered within a period of one year from the
expiry of the period prescribed under sub-section (2), the
- 36 -
wp9715.22.odt
person shall be deemed to be unlawfully occupying
Government land and shall be liable to be summarily
evicted in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Revenue Act, 1317 Fasli.
(5) If the occupancy price payable by a permanent tenant
or tenant under sub-section (2) is paid by him or recovered
from him under sub-section (4) then--
(a) a sum equal to one-fourth of the of the amount paid by,
or recovered from, the permanent tenant, and
(b) a sum equal to one-half of the amount paid by, or
recovered from, the tenant shall be paid to the inamdar.
(6) Nothing in this section shall entitle the inamdar, kabiz-
e-kadim, permanent tenant, tenant or any other person to
claim compensation for the modification or extinguishment
of any of his rights to, or interest in, the land to which this
section applies.]
17. It is thus clear from above provisions that in respect of
land comprised in Inam which is held not perpetual and it was not
alienable, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1954 would apply
wherein not only the tenant and Kabiz-e-kadim but also Inamdar is
- 37 -
wp9715.22.odt
made liable for payment of occupancy price. It is pertinent to note
that this occupancy price varies from person to person who is
required to pay the same. It is further provided in sub-section (4)
that if any person is liable to pay to the State Government occupancy
price in sub-section (2) fails to pay the same, it becomes recoverable
as arrears of land revenue and if not recovered within a period of one
year from expiry of period prescribed, the person shall be deemed to
have been in unlawful occupancy of the Government land and shall
be liable to be summarily evicted. This provision clearly indicates
that irrespective of abolition of Inam to which Section 6 applies, the
land stands vested in the Government, its occupation continues with
Inamdar or tenant as the case may be.
18. Now dealing with the arguments of learned Senior
Counsel that these provisions are not independent, a plain reading of
both provisions indicate that Section 5 has application to inam
perpetual and alianable whereas Section 6 applies to inam not
covered by Section 5 i.e. inams not perpetual and alienable. The
terminology/language used in both provisions is so clear that it
leaves no room of doubt that both provisions are independent to each
other. Meaning thereby inam which is perpetual and alienable, only
- 38 -
wp9715.22.odt
Section 5 would apply and once it is applicable, it would be out of
question to make provisions of Section 6 attracted to it. Moreover
from the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 it could be also seen that
legislative intent is absolutely clear that in case of perpetual and
alienable inam, no occupancy price is payable by inamdar. On the
other hand, in respect of other inam not covered by Section 5
Inamdar is required to pay occupancy price. This becomes more
obvious in view of the different occupancy price required to be paid
by permanent tenant, other tenant and Inamdar. The provisions in
question therefore indicate legislative intent of dealing with different
inam lands differently. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to hold
that Sections 5 and 6 are not independent provisions.
19. Learned Senior Counsel also sought to convince this
Court to accept his contention that once land vests in the State
unless re-grant is done, Inamdar would not get right in the subject
lands. This submission however does not get any support from the
provisions of the Act of 1954. He was unable to point out any
provision which require re-grant of the lands. What has not been
provided by legislature cannot be permitted to be read in. This would
amount to re-writing of statute, which is wholly impermissible for the
- 39 -
wp9715.22.odt
Court to do. Moreover, the provisions therein more than sufficiently
indicate that vesting of land to the Government would not lead to
automatic cessation of possession thereof by Inamdar or tenant as
the case may be.
20. This aspect becomes even more clear from the impugned
orders. Deputy Collector in the order dated 30.05.2014 has directed
possession to be taken of the land in question. This clearly means
that irrespective of the fact that there was abolition of Inam and the
land vested in the Government, the actual possession was never
contemplated to have been taken from occupier as contemplated by
Section 6(4) of the Act of 1954. It would be taken over only in case of
compliance of Section 6 thereof and not otherwise. In case of
perpetual and alienable inam, the only consequence which entails in
respect of same is that the lands in question become amenable to the
land revenue thereafter. Only where the tenant claims occupancy
right, the question of payment of occupancy price would come for
him to pay the said amount to the Inamdar.
21. It is pertinent to note that the Additional Collector in
order dated 28.12.2010 in paragraph No. 3 has rejected the
contention of the Petitioner that the Inam is covered by provisions of
- 40 -
wp9715.22.odt
Section 5 on the ground that in support of the said submission there
was no evidence led. This finding is totally erroneous in view of the
fact that in the earlier round of litigation in respect of the same lands,
this Court has held that it is a Madad Mash land and it is not in
dispute it being perpetual and alienable and therefore it was covered
by Section 5 of the Act of 1954. The authorities have failed to take
into consideration the said aspect and thereby committed serious
error in law while passing impugned orders. As held in the previous
round of litigation, when the concerned Inam is Madad Mash, which
is admittedly perpetual and alienable, this Court has no hesitation
to hold that the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1954 have no
application to the present case as the case is covered by Section 5 of
the Act.
22. As far as revenue record is concerned, in 'gav namuna 7'
the holding of land is shown as Class I land. In the facts of the case,
where the inam is perpetual and alienable, the said classification
done by revenue authorities appears correct. In any case, it would
not be open for the Authorities under Act of 1954, to consider the
correctness or otherwise of classification of lands done in revenue
record in exercise of powers under MLR Code. Similarly, it would not
- 41 -
wp9715.22.odt
be open to take exception to the registered sale-deeds except in
respect of lands covered by Section 5 of the Act or non-agricultural
permissions granted by the authorities concerned under different
statute. The whole entertainment of complaint of MLA on these
counts becomes unsustainable.
23. The orders impugned indicate that the Deputy Collector
in order dated 30.05.2014 has held that the lands in question are
sold during the pendency of the proceeding between the tenant and
Inamdar before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and since the purchasers
had not received ownership rights, the sale transaction becomes
illegal. This finding is confirmed by the appellate authority. as far as
these findings are concerned, perusal of the provisions of the Act
more particularly Section 2(A) indicate that it was not open for the
authority under the provisions of the Act to decide correctness or
otherwise of the sale-deeds executed by the Inamdars in favour of the
subsequent purchasers. Under Clause (v) the question whether any
land held as Inam is or is not alienated without permission of the
competent authority only could have been gone into by the authority.
Pertinently, the Deputy Collector had not gone into the said issue
however recorded finding to the effect that Section 6 has application
- 42 -
wp9715.22.odt
to the case. As admitted by both sides, the land in question is
Madadmash land and is perpetual and alienable, the relevant
provisions applicable would be Section 5 only and not Section 6.
24. The said order further indicates that occupancy price
since not paid by Inamdar under Section 6(2) of the Act of 1954, it
was held that there is breach of said condition which has resulted
into taking possession of the land in question. The authority has
failed to take into account provisions of Section 5 which are
applicable to the Inam in question and subject lands. Since both
Sections 5 and 6 are independent, there is a manifest error
committed by the Deputy Collector in holding that there is breach of
condition by non-payment of occupancy price under Section 6(2) of
the Act of 1954.
25. As a result of above discussion, the orders impugned
cannot sustain in law and deserve to be set aside and are accordingly
set aside. Petitions stand allowed. Rule made absolute in above
terms.
( R. M. JOSHI)
Judge
dyb
