Shri. Ravindra Savaliram Wagh Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3301 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shri. Ravindra Savaliram Wagh Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 1 April, 2026

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

2026:BHC-AS:15334
                                                                                      WP.9003.2014.doc

  Ajay

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9003 OF 2014

             Ravindra Savaliram Wagh, Since deceased,
             through his L.Rs. (i)Smita Ravindra Wagh and
             Ors.                                         .. Petitioners
                   Versus
             State of Maharashtra                         .. Respondent

                                        ....................
              Ms. Indrayani Koparkar, Advocate for Petitioners.
              Ms. Mamta Srivastava, AGP for Respondent - State.
                                                 ....................

                                                     CORAM            : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                                     DATE             : APRIL 01, 2026.

             P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Koparkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners and

Ms. Srivastava, learned AGP for Respondent - State. By consent

Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. Petition challenges Judgment dated 29.03.2014 passed by

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "MRT") in Revision

proceedings under the Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Land Act

1948 (for short "said Act"). By virtue of the said Judgment, Revision

Application No. TNC/REV/303/B/20211 is dismissed and order dated

27.07.2011 passed by Sub - Divisional Officer and order dated

31.10.2010 passed by Tahsildar are confirmed.

1 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

3. Necessary relevant facts for deciding present Writ Petition

are as follows:-

3.1. Sometime in 1960 - 1961, 24 acres of land and two houses

belonging to Original Petitioner and his family was acquired by the

State Government for Girna (Panzan) Dam Project and in lieu thereof

Original Petitioner was given compensation of Rs.30,000/-. Original

Petitioner represented to the State Government for grant of alternate

land and further compensation as per market value. Original Petitioner

was landless until 1988 when subject land in village Bhagyagaon

bearing Gat No. 212 belonging to one Mohanlal Verma was purchased

by the Petitioner. Original Petitioner purchased the land by registered

Agreement for sale dated 13.07.1989 and paid the appropriate stamp

duty. He cultivated the land for 6 years thereafter but had to give up

cultivation due to natural calamities and nuisance of animals and theft.

He thereafter decided to make layout on the subject land for

construction of houses, but since said land was of new tenure

permission to subdivide the land and make layout was rejected and he

was directed to obtain permission from the Divisional Commissioner.

He then made application for survey and measurement of the subject

land and applied for separate copy of 7/12 extract. Ultimately, on

27.02.2008 subject land was surveyed and separate 7/12 extract was

prepared. It took almost more than 12 years for the aforesaid exercise

after which procedure for sub - division and layout commenced. On

2 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

20.09.2008 tentative layout was sanctioned by the State Government.

By letter dated 07.06.2009 Collector Nasik called upon the Original

Petitioner to pay Nazrana amount to the extent of 75% of the

unearned amount for using the subject land for NA purpose and for

conversion of the same from old tenure to New Tenure. Since he was

unable to afford payment of Nazarana amount, he filed Writ Petition

No.5041 of 2010 in this Court seeking exemption from payment of

Nazrana amount. During pendency of the said Writ Petition Tahsildar

informed Court that by order dated 31.10.2010, subject land belonging

to original Petitioner was resumed, acquired and taken over by

government. Therefore this Court passed order dated 18.11.2010

holding that since the land was already taken over by Government it

would be open for original Petitioners to ask for compensation from

the Government as per law. He thereafter challenged Order dated

31.10.2010 passed by Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer (for

short 'SDO'). By order dated 27.07.2011 the challenge failed. On

29.03.2014 challenge to order dated 27.07.2011 was rejected by

holding that once this Court passed order dated 18.11.2010, it was not

appropriate for MRT to interfere with that order hence Petitioners was

directed to approach this Court for his grievance. Petitioners therefore

filed present Petition to challenge order dated 29.03.2014.

4. Learned Advocate Ms. Koparkar would submit that during

pendency of the Petition, original Petitioner expired sometime in 2019

3 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

and now Petition is prosecuted by his legal heirs. She would submit

that since 1961 Petitioners and their family members are awaiting

justice due to acquisition of their original land for public purpose. She

would submit that Petitioners' predecessors were initially awarded

compensation which was thoroughly inadequate. She would submit

that Petitioners sought alternate land for cultivation which was never

given by Government. She would submit that in 1989 by virtue of a

registered Agreement to Sale Petitioners purchased the subject land

rather by way of Exchange with Mohanlal Verma the erstwhile land

owner. She would submit that the subject land admeasuring 2 acres

was allowed to be purchased by Petitioners vide order dated

15.06.1989 subject to the condition that the tenure of the subject land

would remain the same. She would submit that Petitioners and said

Mohanlal Verma applied to Collector jointly for permission to exchange

their respective lands and pursuant to above order Petitioners

exchanged their land holding being GAT No.197 with land holding of

Shri Mohanlal Verma being Gat No.212.

4.1. She would submit that admittedly Petitioners' land holding

was of old tenure whereas Mohanlal Verma's land holding was of new

tenure. She would submit that though Petitioners acquired the subject

land for agricultural purpose which was of new tenure and the

Government demanded payment of Nazrana for granting exemption to

Petitioners to use the land for Non Agricultural purpose, according to

4 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

the government if Petitioners desired to use the land for NA purpose

they would be required to pay Nazrana amount as calculated and equal

to 75% of the differential market value including improvements made

thereon. She would submit that despite the above fact the Government

has unilaterally issued Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2010 to the

Petitioners for resumption of subject land under Section 65 of said Act

on the ground of non cultivation of said land for more than 12 years.

She would submit that on 31.10.2010 Tahsildar passed order for

resumption of the subject land from Petitioners by holding that since

the land is not cultivated by Petitioner, it seemed that Petitioners were

not interested and therefore the land be resumed by the Government.

She would submit that no further steps are admittedly taken by the

Government thereafter. She would submit that order of Tahsildar was

challenged before the Sub Divisional Officer who by Order dated

27.07.2011 rejected the Appeal. She would submit that order of Sub

Divisional Officer was further upheld by MRT by virtue of impugned

order. She would submit that in the interregnum Petitioners made

application to the Tahsildar who in turn recommended the case of the

Petitioners to the State Government.

4.2. She would submit that on 04.07.2012, State Government by

order dated 10.08.2014 rejected the application of Petitioners on the

basis of earlier orders passed by Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer

and challenge to the same made before this Court in Writ Jurisdiction

5 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

also failed. In the above facts she would vehemently submit that since

possession of the subject land is with the Petitioners and their family

till today and Government not having taken any steps for acquisition of

the subject land in furtherance of its alleged action under Section 65 of

the said Act, judgment dated 29.03.2014 passed by MRT be dismissed.

She would therefore persuade the Court to allow the Petition.

5. PER CONTRA, Ms. Mamta Shrivastava learned AGP,

appearing for the State and its functionaries would draw my attention

the two Affidavits in Reply filed on behalf of State dated 17.10.2016

and 21.02.2026 to contend that Order dated 31.08.2010 passed by

Tahsildar resuming subject land is a correct order pursuant to which

the subject land has vested in the State Government. She would submit

that the subject land was not cultivated for more than 2 years by

Petitioner. She would submit that between 1996 and 2009 Petitioners

did not cultivate the subject land but kept the same as fallow land

leading to issuance of Show Cause Notice and passing of Order dated

31.10.2010. She would submit that aforesaid fact is undisputed and is

contained in Talathi's report filed in respect thereof. She would submit

that in that view of the matter, impugned order dated 29.03.2014 is

correctly passed by learned MRT since the land has vested in the

Government. Hence she would submit that Petitioners are not entitled

to any relief whatsoever and Petition be dismissed.

6 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

6. I have heard the learned Advocates at the bar. Submissions

made by both sides have received due consideration of the Court.

7. It is an admitted position that subject land is in possession

and custody of Petitioners as on today. Petitioner's grievance is that

revenue record pertaining to the said subject land was mutated in the

name of the State Government by virtue of the order dated 31.10.2010

passed by the Tahsildar which was upheld by the MRT.

8. The State is relying upon the order of the Division Bench dated

18.11.2010 in Writ Petition No. 5041 of 2010 being the basis of

impugned order. Copy of the said order is appended to the Petition at

"Exhibit - B" on page No.18 . The said order records that land

belonging to Petitioners is acquired under the said Act and since land is

already acquired by the Government it will be open for Petitioners to

ask for compensation. This statement which is recorded in the order is

in my opinion not the correct position in law qua the facts of the

Petitioners case and there is prima facie incorrect submission and

position in law recorded by the Court in the said order. In this regard

attention is drawn to the provisions of section 65 of the said Act which

read thus:

"65:- Assumption of management of lands which remained uncultivated.-- (1) If it appears to the 3 [State] Government that for any two consecutive years, any land has remained uncultivated 4 [or the full and efficient use of the land has not been made for the purpose of agriculture, through the default of the holder or any other cause whatsoever not beyond his control] the 5 [State] Government

7 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

may after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, declare that the management of such land shall be assumed. The declaration so made shall be conclusive.

(2) On the assumption of the management, such land shall vest in the

[State] Government during the continuance of the management and the provisions of Chapter IV shall mutatis mutandis apply to the said land:

[Provided that the Manager may in suitable cases give such land on lease at rent even equal to the amount of its assessment: Provided further that, if the Management of the land has been assumed under sub-section (1) on account of the default of the tenant, such tenant shall cease to have any right or privilege under Chapter II or III, as the case may be, in respect of such land, with effect from the date on and from which such management has been assumed.]"

9. Perusal of the above Section shows that it pertains to

assumption of management of lands which remain uncultivated.

Section 65(1) refers to a situation that if any land remains uncultivated

for a third period of two years, State may after making such inquiry

pass a declaration that management of such land shall be assumed if

full and efficient use of the land is not made for the purpose of

agriculture through the default of the holder or any other cause

whatsoever not beyond his control. In the case of Petitioners save and

except giving Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2010 under Section 65

of the said Act, it is prima facie seen that no inquiry whatsoever has

been held and without doing so Tahsildar has passed a declaration /

order on 31.08.2010 summarily based on the Inspection report of the

Talathi by not satisfactorily agreeing with the Petitioner's reply to the

Show Cause Notice. The declaration has been passed but no further

steps have been taken as contemplated under Sub - Section 2 of

8 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

Section 65 for management of the Petitioner's land holding under

Chapter 4 of the said Act. This is an admitted position because all

along subject land is in possession of Petitioners and his family

members, thus there is a clear dereliction and non compliance of the

enquiry under Sub - Section 1 and management of the subject land

under Sub - Section 2 of Section 65. The issue does not rest at this. If

it is the case of the State Government that the land is already acquired

then the same is required to be confirmed by an appropriate Gazette

Notification to be issued under Sub - Section 1 of Section 66 followed

by publication of notification and statutory inquiry in the prescribed

manner to determine value of the subject land which has been

acquired followed by declaration of a statutory award. Section 66 in

this regard plays a complimentary role along with Section 65 for

vesting of such land in the State Government. For reference section 66

is reference below.

"66. Acquisition of estate or land under management or interest therein.-- (1) If at any time it appears to the 8 [State] Government that any estate or land, the management of which has been assumed under the provisions of this Act or the interest of any other person in such estate or land should in the public interest, be compulsorily acquired, it shall be lawful for the 9 [State] Government to publish a notification to that effect in the Official Gazette. The notification so published shall be conclusive that the estate, land or interest is needed to be acquired in public interest.

(2) On the publication of the notification, the Collector shall cause publicity to be given to it at convenient places in the locality and also give notices to the holder of the estate, land or interest and to all persons known or believed to be interested therein. (3) The Collector shall then make an inquiry in the prescribed manner to determine the value of the estate, land or interest which has been acquired. For the said purpose the Collector shall have the same

9 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

powers as are vested in courts, in respect of the following matters under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), in trying a suit:

--

(a) proof of facts by affidavits;

(b) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; and (c) compelling the production of documents.

(4) In determining the value the Collector shall take into consideration--

(a) the assessment payable in respect of the estate or land;

(b) the profits of agriculture and cultivation of the estate or land and of similar estates and lands in the locality;

(c) the price of crops and commodities in the locality;

(d) exemption from assessment and other privileges enjoyed by the holder and other persons interested in respect of the land, estate and interest;

(e) any other matter which may be prescribed. (5) After determining the value of the estate, land or interest the Collector shall make an award which shall contain--

(a) the particulars of the estate, land or interest,

(b) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land,

(c) the apportionment of the compensation among all persons known, or believed to be interested.

(6) Such award shall be filed in the Collector's office and shall, except as hereinafter provided, be final and conclusive evidence as between the Collector and persons interested whether they have respectively appeared before the Collector or not of all the particulars including area and value of the estate, land or interest and the apportionment of compensation.

(7) When the Collector has made an award, the estate, land or interest therein shall vest in[Government] free from all incumbrances."

10. If the aforesaid provision are seen then vesting of such land

in the Government free from all encumbrances happens only when the

Collector declares the statutory award as contemplated by Sub -

Section 7.

10 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

11. Applying the aforesaid provisions of the facts of Petitioners

case prima facie leaves no doubt in the mind that case of acquisition of

Petitioner's subject land by State Government has never taken place. In

the present case save and except issuance of Show Cause Notice and

the declaration / order dated 31.08.2010 made by the Tahsildar no

other steps contemplated by Sections 65 or 66 for assumption of

management and acquisition of the subject land have been taken. Most

importantly it is seen that the declaration / order dated 31.08.2010 is

not passed after conducting the appropriate statutory inquiry by the

Tahsildar. Thus when the foundation of the Government's case that the

subject land has been acquired and stands vested in the Government

cannot be proved neither can it be accepted by the Court by any stretch

of imagination. In the twin Affidavit - in - Reply filed by the

Government, its case merely rests with passing of the Order dated

31.10.2010 which in itself is vitiated as it is passed without

undertaking any inquiry for the purpose of assumption. In view

thereof, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer dated

27.07.2011 and Order passed by the MRT dated 29.04.2014 stand

completely vitiated in the absence of non compliance with the

statutory provisions of acquisition of Petitioner's subject land under

Sections 65 and 66 of said Act and therefore the action taken on part

of Government is clearly unsustainable in law. There is a completely

misleading statement recorded by the Division Bench of this Court that

11 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

the Petitioners' land is already acquired. Vesting of land has to

translate into acquisition by following the due process of law. Land is

still in possession of Petitioners. Hence case of the Government, who

are unable to show how acquisition has been completed, cannot be

accepted merely on the basis of its purported pleadings.

12. In view of my aforesaid observations and findings the

impugned order passed by the learned MRT dated 29.03.2014 in

Revision Application filed by the Petitioners is quashed and set aside.

13. Resultantly order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Malegaon

in Tenancy Appeal No.131 of 2010 decided on 27.11.2011 and order

passed by Tahsildar, Malegaon in Tenancy Case No.284 of 2010

decided on 31.10.2010 are also quashed and set aside.

14. In view of the above order, mutation of Petitioners' name in

the revenue record of the subject land is directed to be mutated

forthwith and deletion of name of the State Government be effected

forthwith expeditiously and in any event within a period of 4 weeks

from the date of this order by the Talathi / Tahsildar, Malegaon and /

or Incharge Officer of the State on the basis of a server copy of this

Order.

15. In view of the above, the Order dated 10.08.2014 passed by

the State on the report filed by the Tahsildar dated 04.07.2012 also

cannot be sustained and is therefore quashed and set aside. Though

12 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

there is no separate prayer made for setting aside the said order, the

same cannot be allowed to be continued as it defeats the substantive

right of the Petitioners in the subject land. The subject land is not

equivalent to land alloted by the Government to the Petitioners with

conditions. Section 65 and 66 are extremely drastic provisions which

lead to vesting and acquisition after statutory inquiry which leads to

extinguishment of right. Hence those provisions, if required to be

followed are supposed to be followed to the hilt.

16. In so far as the issue of conversion of tenure of the

Petitioners subject land into Non Agricultural land is concerned it

appears that Petitioners made an application to the Collector prior to

07.06.2009 after the tentative layout was sanctioned by the

Government on 20.09.2008. On Application made by the Petitioners,

Collector Nasik issued letter dated 07.06.2009 calling upon Petitioners

to pay amount equal to 75% of unearned amount as Nazrana for

conversion. The said Application and case of Petitioners seeking

conversion stands revived and Petitioners are at liberty to pursue the

same with Competent Authority. If the Petitioners pursue the same

then the date of initial application shall be considered by the

Competent Authority for the purpose of computation of Nazrana

amount in accordance with law and the Government Resolutions as

applicable to the Petitioners' land. The above directions are necessary

to be passed to do complete justice to the Petitioners case. The scope of

13 of 14

WP.9003.2014.doc

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very wide.

Hence above directions are necessary once the MRT order dated

29.03.2014 is quashed and set aside on merits.

17. Writ Petition is allowed and disposed off in the

aforementioned terms.

                                                                                     [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

         Ajay


AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.04.01
              12:19:55 +0530




                                                                                                                 14 of 14