Nasir Banemia Khatib and 19 Ors v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for the Petitioners. Mr. A.I.I. Patel, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. --- CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 26th SEPTEMBER, 2012 P.C. : 1 Heard Mr. Gorwadkar, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. 2 Perused the orders under challenge. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the authorities concerned in refusing to decide their Applications dated 12th May, 2000 and 25th September, 2000. 3 It is claimed by the Petitioners that a land was granted to their ancestor. His name was recorded in the land revenue record. The Petitioners have given details of the said lands and then contended that these lands were originally Inam lands and, therefore, the Bombay Service Inams (Useful to the Community) Abolition Act, 1953 and the Rules framed in 1954 were made applicable. It is claimed that the original ancestor Borey spb/ 901-5907-10.sxw had only two sons but there were three heirs of the original ancestor. The Petitioners are claiming through one Banemiya and Burhannuddin. It is their claim that the authorities refused to hold necessary enquiry as to who are the heirs and thereafter correct the land revenue record. The authorities have communicated to the Petitioners that they must establish their status as heirs by obtaining appropriate declaration from the competent court and only thereafter, the entries would be made. 4 After perusal of these orders and the communications, I am of the opinion that the Petitioners have an alternate and equally efficacious remedy and in the event they approach the competent civil court to obtain such declaration as is permissible in law, including that they have a right in the property on the basis of heirship. I have no doubt in my mind that the revenue authorities will give effect to it. None of the observations that have been made by the authority can take away the right of the Petitioners to approach competent civil court and obtain relief as stated above. 5 Finding that there is no prejudice caused by these communications and they do not decide or determine any issue of right, title and interest of the Petitioners in the properties in question, the Writ Petition is disposed off. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Borey