Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:6320 -1- W.P.No.135.2020+2IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2020Maruti S/o. Bhau KshirsagarDeceased Through L.R.’s,1Tukaram Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 52 years, Occu : Agri,R/o : Gumatacha Phad, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad2Avida W/o Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 65 years, Occu : Agri. And Household,R/o : Gumatacha Phad, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad …. PetitionersVersus1The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Rural Development Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-322The District Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad3The Additional Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad4The Deputy Collector,(General Administration)Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad5The Competent Authority &Sub Divisional Officer,(Land Acquisition), Kallam,Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad6Bharat S/o Sitaram ChedeAge : 50 years, Occu : Agril, -2- W.P.No.135.2020+2R/o : Samta Nagar. Collage Road, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad…. Respondents***Advocates for Petitioner : Mr. D. M. Mane & Mr. A. N. NagargojeAdvocate for Respondent No. 5 : Ms. Sudha Chintamani h/f Mr. S. S. DeveAdvocate for Respondent No. 6 : Senior Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar i/b. Mr. V. S. UndreAGP for Respondents-State : Ms. M. L. Sangit***WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11870 OF 2021Suresh Rama ShindeAge : 52 years, Occu : Agril,R/o : Washi, at presentResiding at Pune, Through G.P.A. Holder namely;Akash 24 years, Ocu. Agril. & Business,R/o. Golegaon, Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad …. PetitionerVersus1The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Revenue & Forest Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-322The District Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad3The Additional Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad4The Deputy Collector (Gen. Adm.)
Legal Reasoning
-3- W.P.No.135.2020+2Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad5Deputy Collector (Land Reforms),Osmanabad, District Osmanabad6The Tahsildar, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad7The Competent Authority /Sub Divisional Officer,(Land Acquisition), Kallam,Tq. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad8.Maruti S/o. Bhau KshirsagarDeceased Through L.R.’s,8-ATukaram Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 52 years, Occu : Agri,8-BAvida W/o Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 62 years, Occu : AgriBoth R/o : Gumatacha Phad, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad9Tejashree W/o Vinod ShelakeAge : 32 years, Occu. Household,R/o : Samata Nagar, College Road, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. OsmanabadAt present R/o : Shivshambhu Nagar, Galli No.04, Sy. No. 36,Katraj-Kondwa Road, Pune-4610Bharat S/o Sitaram ChedeAge : 51 years, Occu : Business,R/o : Samta Nagar, College Road, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad…. Respondents***Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Nitin S. KadamAdvocate for Respondent No. 7 : Mr. R. B. BhosaleAdvocate for Respondents No. 9 and 10 : Senior Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar i/b. Mr. V. S. Undre -4- W.P.No.135.2020+2AGP for Respondents-State : Ms. M. L. Sangit***WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 14999 OF 2019Maruti S/o. Bhau KshirsagarDeceased Through L.R.’s,1Tukaram Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 52 years, Occu : Agri,R/o : Gumatacha Phad, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad2Avida W/o Maruti Kshirsagar,Age : 65 years, Occu : Agri. And Household,R/o : Gumatacha Phad, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad …. PetitionersVersus1The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Revenue & Forest Department,Mantralaya, Mumbai-322The District Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad3The Additional Collector,Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad4The Deputy Collector (Gen. Adm.)Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad5The Tahsildar, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad 6The Circle Officer (Mandal Adhikari),Washi Sajja, Washi,Tq. Washi, District Osmanabad -5- W.P.No.135.2020+27The Talathi,Washi Sajja, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. Osmanabad8.Tejashree W/o Vinod ShelakeAge : 30 years, Occu. Household,R/o : Samata Nagar, College Road, Washi,Tq. Washi, Dist. OsmanabadAt present R/o : Shivshambhu Nagar, Galli No.04, Sy. No. 36,Katraj Kondwa Road, Pune-46…. Respondents***Advocates for Petitioner : Mr. D. M. Mane & Mr. A.N. NagargojeAdvocate for Respondent No. 8 : Senior Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar i/b. Mr. V. S. UndreAGP for Respondents-State : Ms. M. L. Sangit***CORAM:MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. RESERVED ON:04 FEBRUARY, 2025 PRONOUNCED ON:05 MARCH, 2025 ***JUDGMENT : 1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally withthe consent of parties. 2.Three writ petitions filed by the respective parties isheard and decided together by way of common order since the subjectmatter of the writ petitions is a land which is under restriction underthe Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961.
Decision
-6- W.P.No.135.2020+2By an order of this Court, all these writ petitions are tagged to beheard. Considering that the subject matter of the three writ petitionsis one and the same, all the writ petitions are heard and are beingdecided by this common judgment.WRIT PETITION NO. 135 OF 2020 3.Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020 is the petition whichrequires to be decided as a lead petition since it is filed by the ownerof the land who has executed various sale-deeds in favour ofrespondents in this writ petition and the petitioner in Writ PetitionNo. 11870 of 2021. Therefore, the Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020needs to be treated as a lead petition. 4.The Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020 is filed challenging theorder dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Additional Collector,Osmanabad in File No. 2017/GA/LR-2/KV-366. A prayer is also madethat the Competent Authority & Sub-Divisional Officer, Kallam may bedirected to pay the amount of compensation of the acquired portionof land bearing Gat No. 828 situated at village Washi, Tq. Washi, Dist.Osmanabad to the petitioner. In the alternate, prayer is also made forreferring the dispute regarding the disbursement of the compensationamount to the competent Court as provided under Section 3-H of theNational Highways Act, 1956. -7- W.P.No.135.2020+25.The order impugned has been passed by the AdditionalCollector, Osmanabad thereby declaring that the petitioner hascommitted breach of conditions of the restrictions imposed on theland Gat No. 828, situated at Washi. It was further directed thatrespondent No. 6 Bharat Shriram Chede, should be directed to depositthe amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- which is 50% of the market rate of thesubject land for the breach of restriction and the rest of the amount ofcompensation towards the land acquisition was directed to bedisbursed to him. The Talathi, Osmanabad, is directed to makepermanent entry instead of pencil entry. The order passed by theAdditional Collector has been challenged by Shri. Maruti BhauKshirsagar who is the original owner of Gat No. 828. 6.For better appreciation of the facts and in order to decidethe correctness of the order impugned, it is necessary to appreciatethe chain of events leading to the order impugned. 7.Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Nagargojesubmitted that Gat No. 828 ad-measuring 1H-66R at village Washiwas allotted under The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling onHoldings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter “Ceiling on Holdings Act” for short)to the petitioner. Since it was a surplus land allotted under the CeilingAct, there was restriction on alienation on the said land. The -8- W.P.No.135.2020+2petitioner was allotted the surplus land vide order dated 01.07.1976,by the Tahsildar, an entry to the effect is taken in the mutationregister and the petitioner was handed over the possession of the saidland. 8.It is the contention of the petitioner that after obtainingnecessary permission from the authorities, he has sold some portionof land to the extent of 80R land to one Smt. Manisha Kele in the year2008. It is the contention of the petitioner that by playing fraud andmisappropriation, one Shri. Suresh Shinde has got executed the sale-deed in respect of his land to the extent of 80R on 15.06.1992, andone Smt. Tejashree Shelke, has also got executed the sale-deed dated30.07.2012, to the extent of 46R land from the petitioner. Similarly,respondent No. 6 is also alleged to have played fraud on thepetitioner and has got executed the sale-deed on 17.04.2012 to theextent of 40R. Thus, according to the petitioner, though he was theholder of land to the extent of 1H-66R and he has executed the sale-deed allegedly due to the fraud played by the respective purchasers tothe extent of 80R land by way of sale-deed executed on 15.09.1992 infavour of one Shri. Suresh Rama Shinde and 80R land was furthersold to Smt. Manisha Kele after getting appropriate permission forsale of the land in the year 2008. -9- W.P.No.135.2020+29.It is also undisputed that on 17.04.2012, the respondentNo. 6 has purchased land to the extent of 40R by way of sale-deedand on 30.07.2012, sale-deed to the extent of 46R was executed infavour of one Smt. Tejashree Shelke. Hence, from the avermentsmade in the writ petition, it appears that though the petitioner isallotted land to the extent of 1H-66R, he has sold the land in parts tovarious persons on various dates by executing the sale-deeds. Exceptthe sale-deed which was executed after due permission of theauthority in favour of Smt. Manisha Kele in the year 2008, all othersale-deeds are executed without obtaining the prior permission forsale of land from the Collector who is competent to grant suchpermission under the Ceiling on Holdings Act.10.It is the contention of the petitioner that in the year2016, 21R land from Gat No. 828 was acquired by the Government. Anotice under Section 3-H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956about acquisition of land in Gat No. 828, to the extent of 2100Sq.Mtr. was issued to the petitioner wherein the petitioner wasentitled to receive the compensation to the extent of Rs. 34,55,974/-. 11.The petitioner was called upon to hand over thepossession of acquired land and accept the compensation byproducing proof in support of the possession and ownership of the -10- W.P.No.135.2020+2land. Upon receiving the said notice, the respondent No. 6 has givenhis no objection dated 13.05.2016 to the petitioner for receiving thecompensation of the land acquired. Pursuant to the no objection, thepetitioner has also received the compensation.12.It is submitted that, the petitioner again received a noticein respect of 4R (4000 Sq.mtr.) of land which was additionallyacquired. The notice for payment of compensation was issued to thepetitioner as well as respondent No. 6 for the compensation that wasquantified to the extent of Rs. 6,13,600/-. On receiving the notice, thepetitioner approached the Competent Authority claiming thecompensation as owner of the land. However, respondent No. 6refused to give his consent in favour of the petitioner for 4R land andhe himself claimed the compensation contending that he is the owner.13.It is contended by the petitioner that upon receiving suchobjection, the Competent Authority, referring to Section 3-H(4) of theNational Highways Act, ought to have referred the matter to the CivilCourt. However, respondent No. 5 thought it fit to refer it to theDistrict Collector. In response to his communication seeking guidance,the Deputy Collector, Osmanabad vide communication dated26.08.2018, directed the respondent No. 5 to make the payment ofcompensation as per the provisions of the Act. Since there was no -11- W.P.No.135.2020+2clarity in the guidance given by the Deputy Collector, he againreferred the matter back to the Collector seeking guidance. 14.Upon referring the matter back to the Collector, theDeputy Collector (Land Reforms), by issuing notice on 15.10.2018,called upon the parties to remain present for hearing on 24.10.2018.It is the contention of the petitioner that on receiving the notice, thepetitioner had filed his short say on 16.11.2018 opposing thedisbursement of the compensation to respondent No. 6, since heclaimed to be the owner. It is his contention that after his appearanceon 16.11.2018, he did not receive any notice of hearing. Therefore,on 29.09.2019, he preferred an application before the DistrictCollector requesting him to grant next date for hearing so as to enablehim to submit his detailed say. According to him, thereafter, thematter was listed on 08.11.2019. On the said date, he filed hisdetailed say through Advocate Mr. N. A. Shahane / G. S. Sukale. 15.In the say, it is his contention that the sale-deed inquestion which is purportedly executed by him in favour ofrespondent No. 6, is not a sale-deed but it is a mortgage transactionand he had already repaid the loan amount and therefore, therespondent No. 6 has no concern with the land in question. The landin question is of restricted ownership land under the Ceiling on -12- W.P.No.135.2020+2Holdings Act hence, prior permission before the sale was required tobe obtained. Therefore, the sale-deed is not a valid. Hence, thepetitioner has prayed for cancellation of sale-deed.16.On 01.12.2019, the oral arguments were advanced by theparties and thereafter, the matter was closed for orders. Though thepetitioner raised the several objections against the disbursement ofcompensation in favour of respondent No. 6, however by theimpugned order dated 24.12.2019, the respondent No. 3 has orderedto pay the compensation of Rs. 6,13,600/- to the respondent No. 6 bydeducting an amount 50% of the market price of the land purchasedby respondent No. 6. 17.By the same order, the claim of the respondent No. 6 forregularisation has been accepted by respondent No. 3. It is thecontention of the petitioner that the order passed by the AdditionalCollector, Osmanabad in case No. lafpdk dz-2017@lk-iz-@Hkwlq/kkj&2@dkoh&366 dated 24.12.2019 is contrary to theprovisions of the National Highways Act as well as the Ceiling onHoldings Act. 18.The petitioner has challenged the order passed by theAdditional Collector on the following grounds : -13- W.P.No.135.2020+21.The order impugned is passed without thejurisdiction.2.It is contrary to the provisions of The MaharashtraAgricultural Land (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 196.3.The order impugned is contrary to the provisions ofthe National Highways Act. 19.According to the petitioner, after causing appearance, hehad filed short say on 16.11.2018 and thereafter, he has filed hisdetailed say on 08.11.2019 opposing the regularisation of the sale-deed of the respondent No. 6. According to him, he has neverengaged the Advocate through whom the disputed say has beenpurportedly claimed to have been filed by him. Learned Advocate forthe petitioner has relied on the roznama in support of his contentionthat he had not engaged the services of the Advocate who hadappeared on his behalf and whose appearance has been recorded inthe order and only on the basis of say which is claimed to be filed byhim on 02.01.2018, the order impugned has been passed by theAdditional Collector.20.Though the petitioner has right to raise various disputedquestion of fact, however, in order to decide the validity of the orderpassed by the Collector, it is not necessary to go into the disputedquestion of facts. -14- W.P.No.135.2020+221.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar appearingfor the respondent No. 6 has contended that the petitioner hasexecuted a registered sale-deed on 07.04.2012 in favour ofrespondent No. 6. While executing the said sale-deed, he was awarethat the land is under the restriction under the Ceiling on HoldingsAct. After 2012, the petitioner has never raised any dispute about thevalidity of the sale-deed or even about the fraud which is alleged tohave been played by the respondent No. 6. 22.He has not challenged the sale-deed before anyCompetent Court within the prescribed period of limitation.According to the learned Senior Advocate, in order to challenge thesale-deed, the period of limitation which is prescribed under Article59 of the Limitation Act is 3 years. Therefore, the petitioner shouldhave challenged the sale-deed within the period of three years fromits execution. 23.When the question of disbursement of amount ofcompensation for the acquisition of land arose and notices wereissued to the petitioner, the petitioner and respondents were havingcordial relations. The respondent No. 6 had not raised any objectionto the disbursement of compensation in favour of the petitioner. Inthe meanwhile, they got the knowledge about likelihood of -15- W.P.No.135.2020+2amendment to Section 29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act, whichwould benefit the regularisation of sale-deed executed between themon 07.04.2012. Therefore, the petitioner as well as the respondentdecided to wait for the amendment. Since they were having cordialrelations, they have jointly approached Advocate Shri. S. N. Kawalepracticing at Washi who referred them to the other Advocate.24.The dispute has started when the second notice fordisbursement of compensation for 4,000 Sq.Mtr. of land was issuedand the name of the present respondent No. 6, has appeared in thenotices. On receiving the notice dated 01.04.2016, respondent No. 6has submitted his claim with supporting documents on 13.05.2016.On going through the documents which were placed on record by therespondent No. 6, the Competent Authority, under the NationalHighways Act, found that Mutation Entry No. 10552 was recordedwith pencil. Therefore, he has a report from Circle Officer aboutpencil entry. 25.In response to the communication, the Circle Officer hassubmitted his report on 28.10.2016 wherein it was submitted that theland in question is of restricted ownership and entry to that effect wastaken in the 7/12 extract. Inspite of the restrictions, in absence ofappropriate permission from the Collector, the Sub-Registrar has -16- W.P.No.135.2020+2registered the sale-deed and the entry regarding the restrictedownership is still maintained in the record. Therefore, the mutationentry is not confirmed. It was also recommended that since the sale-deed has been executed in respect of land which was underrestriction, it would be appropriate to impose penalty @ 50% of themarket value and after depositing the same with the Government,sale-deed should be regularised. 26.Thereafter, the Competent Authority has forwarded theproposal to the Collector seeking his guidance in view of the pencilentry in the name of respondent No. 6. He even called for opinionfrom the Additional Collector, Osmanabad by communication dated06.08.2018. 27.Upon receiving the such communication, the AdditionalCollector has conducted hearing of the respective parties treating thecommunication of the SDO and Competent Authority (LandAcquisition), Kallam, as suo-moto proceeding. In the proceedingbefore the Additional Collector, the parties were heard and the matterwas closed for passing of order on 05.05.2019. After taking intoconsideration the submission of respective parties, the AdditionalCollector has passed an order on 24.12.2019 declaring that - (1) there -17- W.P.No.135.2020+2is a contravention of conditions of grant of land; (2) it is furtherdirected that the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, which is 50% of themarket value of the land, be deducted from the compensation; (3)after deducting the amount, rest of the amount should be disbursed tothe respondent No. 6 Bharat Chede; and (4) pencil entry of theBharat Chede in 7/12 extract should be replaced by permanent entry.28.The first submission of the learned Senior Advocate Mr.Katneshwarkar appearing for respondent No. 6 is that the petitionerhas no locus to challenge the regularisation which is made in hisfavour. According to the him, once the person who executes the sale-deed has parted with property, he has no locus to challenge theregularisation when he has already sold the land and he has notchallenged the sale-deeds. Prior to amendment to Section 29 of theCeiling on Holdings Act, the purchaser did not possess right to get hissale-deed regularised, upon amendment to Section 29 of the Act,there is a right conferred in favour of the purchaser to get the sale-deed regularised by making payment of the market value which isascertained by the Competent Authority. Upon payment of suchamount which is provided in the proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section29 of the Act, the sale-deed is regularised. According to him, it isbetween the purchaser and the Collector who is the CompetentAuthority to regularise the sale-deed. -18- W.P.No.135.2020+229.The learned Senior Advocate, referring to the say filed bythe petitioner before the District Collector submits that the prayermade in the say filed by the petitioner is not at all maintainable. Thepetitioner cannot challenge the regularisation of the respondent, if atall the petitioner wants to oppose the execution of sale-deed, the onlyrecourse open to him is to approach the Civil Court. The AdditionalCollector while passing the order impugned has not over-stepped hispowers and there is no jurisdictional error while exercising hispowers.30.According to him, the powers have been conferred underSection 29 of The Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling onHoldings) Act, 1961, under which the Collector can regularise thesale-deeds which are in contravention of the provisions of Ceiling Act.‘Collector’ is defined in Section 2(6) of the Ceiling on Holdings Act,the ‘Collector’ includes the Additional Collector, Assistant Collector,Deputy Collector to exercise the powers or discharge the duties of‘Collector’ under the Code and also any other Officer not below therank of Assistant or Deputy Collector especially empowered by theState Government are empowered to exercise the powers and performthe functions of the Collector by or under the Act. Therefore, the -19- W.P.No.135.2020+2Additional Collector is competent to pass the order and he has notexceeded his powers while passing the impugned order.31.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Katneshwarkar, in responseto the contention that, the right of apportionment of the parties arerequired to be decided by the Civil Court upon the matter beingreferred by the Competent Authority under Sub-section (3) of Section3-H of the National Highways Act, submits that Sub-section (3) ofSection 3-H of the National Highways Act would be relevant and notSub-section (4). The Additional Collector has exercised his powersunder Sub-section (3) and not under Sub-section (4) of the NationalHighways Act. WRIT PETITION NO. 11870 OF 202132.Writ Petition No. 11870 of 2021 is filed by one SureshRama Shinde. According to him, the land in Gat No. 828/b/1 to theextent of 80R was sold to him by Shri. Maruti Bhau Kshirsagar byexecution of registered sale-deed on 15.06.1992. He was also handedover the possession of the land pursuant to the sale-deed. It hiscontention that in the year 2008, Maruti Kshirsagar who isrespondent No. 8 in his writ petition, sold 80R land to one Smt.Manisha Kele with the permission of the Competent Authority. Thus, -20- W.P.No.135.2020+2after execution of two sale-deeds, only 6R residual land remainedwith the owner. Inspite of that, he has subsequently executed sale-deed to the extent of 40R to respondent No. 9 on 17.04.2012 and 46Rland, on 30.07.2012, in favour of respondent No. 10. Since no landwas left after execution of sale-deed in favour of the petitioner andSmt. Manisha Kele, the subsequent sale-deeds are invalid since therewas no land available for execution of sale-deed. Hence, there is novalid title vested by the subsequent sale-deeds. It is his contentionthat since the land was affected by the restriction under Section 29 ofthe Ceiling on Holdings Act, prior permission of the Collector beforesuch transfer is necessary and the transfer without prior permission isvoid. 33.It is submitted that an amendment to Section 29 of theCeiling on Holdings Act is made on 15.12.2018, whereby theprovision is made to regularise the sale-deeds which were made incontravention of Section 29 of the Act. The transferrer, transferee orany person interested on payment of such amount as specified by theGovernment are at liberty to get the sale-deed regularised as per theprescribed procedure under the Act. 34.In view of the amendment to Section 29 of the Ceiling onHoldings Act, respondent No. 9 Smt. Tejashree Shelke filed an -21- W.P.No.135.2020+2application on 25.06.2019 for regularising her sale-deed and enteringher name in the mutation register. Though she had not filed theapplication in the proper format and the Collector being theCompetent Authority to grant such permission, the Deputy Collector(General Administration) has granted permission for regularisation,ignoring the report submitted by the respondent No. 6 which clearlysuggested that there was no agricultural land standing in the name ofTejashree Shelke, there was no consent of co-owners; there was aviolation of provisions of Ceiling on Holdings Act. In spite of thereport which contained various objections, the respondent No. 4 hasdirected to get 50% of nazrana amount deposited from Smt.Tejashree Shelke, the order was made subject to condition of approvalfrom the Competent Authority. 35.Accordingly, respondent No. 6 i.e. Tahsildar, Washi,intimated the District Collector about deposit of nazrana amount byrespondent No. 9 and also submitted the challan for further action.The name of respondent No. 9 Smt. Tejashree Shelke was mutated inthe revenue record to the extent of 86R and order regularising thesale-deed was issued on 29.07.2019. 36.Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 8 -22- W.P.No.135.2020+2Maruti Kshirsagar approached this Court by filing the Writ PetitionNo. 11089 of 2019, which came to be disposed of on 16.10.2019 byremanding the matter back to the respondent No. 6 for passingappropriate orders after granting opportunity of being heard to therespective parties. 37.After remand of the matter, respondent No. 4 DeputyCollector (General Administration), Osmanabad has passed an orderon 29.11.2019, regularising the sale-deed of respondent No. 9 Smt.Tejashree Shelke, the respondent No. 6 Maruti Kshirasagar who isaggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by respondent No. 4on 29.11.2019, has again filed Writ Petition No. 14999 of 2019,which is tagged along with this group of writ petitions.38.According to the petitioner, he has prior claim over allother subsequent purchasers. Therefore, even as regards right toreceive compensation for the acquisition of disputed land from theNational Highway Authority, his claim is prior to everybody else. Thepetitioner has therefore, challenged even the regularisation of theland in favour of respondent No. 10 Bharat Chede who is respondentNo. 6 in Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020. 39.The petitioner herein is also taking exception to the order -23- W.P.No.135.2020+2dated 24.12.2019 passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabadthereby order regularising the sale-deed executed in favour ofrespondent No. 10 and directing the Competent Authority to disbursethe amount of compensation after deducting the amount of nazaranapayable by him towards the regularisation of the sale-deed which wasexecuted in breach of Section 29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act hasbeen issued.40.According to the petitioner, impugned order dated29.11.2019 which is passed in favour of respondent No. 9 Smt.Tejashree Shelke regularising her sale-deed and order dated24.12.2019, passed in favour of respondent No. 10 Bharat Chederegularising his sale-deed as well as directing the disbursement ofamount of compensation in his favour, are challenged by him on theground of jurisdictional error.41.Learned Advocate Mr. Kadam submits that the DeputyCollector and the Additional Collector respectively are notempowered to pass the order of regularisation under Section 29 of theCeiling on Holdings Act. The orders passed by them are withoutapplication of mind and against the provisions of law. The ordersimpugned in the writ petition have not been passed by resorting todue procedure of law. Though the report which was called before -24- W.P.No.135.2020+2regularising the sale-deed of respondent No. 9 was not favourable,ignoring the same, the order has been passed, which is per se illegaland without jurisdiction. Therefore, he is invoking powers of thisCourt under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and setaside the order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 29.11.2019 andthe Additional Collector dated 24.12.2019.WRIT PETITION NO. 14999 OF 201942.Writ Petition No. 14999 of 2019 has been filed by Shri.Maruti Bhau Kshirsagar through his legal heirs. In this writ petition,the petitioner is challenging the orders passed by Deputy Collector(General Administration), Osmanabad dated 29.11.2019 wherein thesale-deed executed in favour of Smt. Tejashree Shelke has beenregularised after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties asdirected by this Court in Writ Petition No. 11089 of 2019. 43.It is the contention of the petitioner that he has beengranted surplus land since he was a landless person belonging tocommunity of backward class. The nature of land allotted to him wasof restricted ownership and Class II occupancy, therefore, it cannot besold without prior permission of the Competent Authority under theCeiling on Holdings Act. -25- W.P.No.135.2020+244.However, one Suresh Rama Shinde has got executed thesale-deed in the year 1992 from the petitioner in respect of the suitland to the extent of 80R. In the year 2012, he was in need of moneyfor the medical treatment, therefore, he had taken loan from privatemoney lender Bharat Chede. Though he had returned the loanamount but because of the collateral given to him against the loan,Shri. Bharat Chede had got the sale-deed executed. According to him,except the sale-deed executed in favour of Smt. Manisha Kele which iswith the prior permission of the Competent Authority, rest all thethree sale-deeds, have been got executed from him, by playing fraudand misrepresentation. Therefore, he has filed the suit challengingthose sale-deeds. 45.It is contended that before the impugned order dated29.11.2019 was passed by the Deputy Collector (GeneralAdministration), a report was called by him in the prescribed format,contained various objections. Ignoring those objections, the sale-deedshave been regularised in contravention of provisions of law. It is hiscontention that he being the transferar of the said sale-deeds, anopportunity of hearing should have been granted to him. However,without giving any notice to the petitioner and other affected persons,the impugned orders have been passed thereby the sale-deed of Shri. -26- W.P.No.135.2020+2Bharat Chede as well as Smt. Tejashree Shelke have been regularised.46.It is submitted that Shri. Suresh Shinde who has got thesale-deed executed from him has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 723 of2019 for declaration of ownership. His daughter Sunita has also filedRegular Civil Suit No. 840 of 2019 against him and other personsseeking declaration that the sale-deeds executed by him are notbinding on her. 47.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the respondentNo. 4 to regularise the sale-deed dated 30.07.2012 and furtherdirecting the Tahsildar to take appropriate steps for entering thename of Smt. Tejashree Sheleke in 7/12 extract, the petitioner hasapproached this Court. After hearing the petitioner, this Court haspassed an order on 18.12.2019 whereby the respondent No. 5Tahsildar, Washi was directed to adjourn the proposed hearing beforehim on 20.12.2019 till the next date. The matter was listed from timeto time and the interim relief was is directed to be continued by theorders of this Court.48.The State has also filed an affidavit and has supportedthe order passed by the respondent No. 4. According to the State -27- W.P.No.135.2020+2Authorities, the sale-deed has been regularised in view of theGovernment Resolution dated 15.12.2019. In fact, it is not theGovernment Resolution but a notification of the amendment toSection 29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act. 49.On the background as stated herein above, after hearingthe respective parties and upon going through the memo of writpetition and relevant documents placed on record, all the parties inthe three writ petitions are affected by the two orders dated24.12.2019 passed by Deputy Collector and order dated 24.11.2019passed by Additional Collector. 50.Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020 has been filed by theMaruti Bhau Kshirsagar challenging the order dated 24.12.2019passed in favour of respondent No. 6 regularising the sale-deed dated17.04.2012 to the extent of 40R land and writ petition No. 14999 of2019 has been filed by him challenging the legality and validity of theregularisation granted in favour of Smt. Tejashree Vinod Shelke inrespect of sale-deed executed on 30.07.2012 vide order dated29.11.2019 whereas Writ Petition No. 11870 of 2021 has been filedby Shri. Suresh Rama Shinde challenging the order dated 29.11.2019and 24.12.2019 regularising sale-deed executed in favour of Smt.Tejashree Vinod Shelke and Shri. Bharat Chede respectively. -28- W.P.No.135.2020+2Therefore, in order to narrow down the controversy, this Court willhave to assess the validity and legality of the two orders which areimpugned in three writ petitions. 51.The question that needs to be decided is whether theAdditional Collector is conferred with the powers to pass an order ofregularisation under Section 29 of The Maharashtra Agricultural Land(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and also empowered under theprovisions of National Highways Act, 1956 to pass an order ofdisbursement of compensation by regularising the sale-deed andfurther directing to adjust the nazarana amount by deducting it fromthe amount of compensation receivable by him.52.So far as the regularisation of sale-deed executed inbreach of condition under the Ceiling on Holdings Act is concerned,admittedly, the land in question has been sold by the petitionerwithout prior permission of the Collector. The restrictions areimposed under Section 8 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act on transfer ofland, if such transfers are made in contravention of the conditionimposed. After giving opportunity to show cause, there was aprovision of forfeiture of land by the Collector. However, after theamendment to Section 29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act, the powers -29- W.P.No.135.2020+2of forfeiture have been relaxed, the proviso to Section 29 providesthat no such forfeiture by the Collector for contravention of provisionsof Sub-section (1) of Sub-section (2) should be made, if the transfer,transferee or any other person interested in such land makes thepayment of an amount of 50% of the market value and upon suchpayment being made, no further proceedings for violation of theprovision of Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be initiated. 53.Section 29 of The Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceilingon Holdings) Act, 1961 is reproduced here which reads thus :29. Restriction on transfer or division of land granted undersection 28.(1) Without the previous sanction of the Collector, no landgranted under section 27 or granted to a joint farming societyunder section 28, shall be –(a) transferred, whether by way of sale (including sale inexecution of a decree of a civil court or of an award or orderof any competent authority) or by way of gift, mortgage,exchange, lease or otherwise; or(b) divided whether by partition or otherwise, and whetherby a decree or order of a civil court or any other competentauthority, such sanction shall not be given otherwise than in suchcircumstances, and on such conditions [including conditionregarding payment of premium or nazarana to the StateGovernment], as may be prescribed : -30- W.P.No.135.2020+2[Provided that, no such sanction shall be necessary whereland is to be leased by a serving member of the armed forcesor where the land is to be mortgaged as provided in sub-section (4) of section 36 of the Code for raising a loan foreffecting any improvement of such land.](2) If sanction is given by the Collector to any transfer ordivision under sub- section (1) subsequent transfer ordivision of land shall also be subject to the provisions of sub-section (1).(3) Any transfer or division of land, and any acquisitionthereof, in contravention of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)shall be invalid; and as a penalty therefor, any right, title andinterest of the transferor and transferee in or in relation tosuch land shall, after giving him an opportunity to showcause, be forfeited by the Collector and shall without furtherassurance vest in the State Government.[Provided that, after the commencement of the MaharashtraAgricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act,2018, no such land shall be forfeited by the Collector forcontravention of the provisions of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), as the case may be, if the transferor, transferee orany other person interested in such land makes the paymentof such amount, as the State Government may, by orderpublished in the Official Gazette, specify :Provided furtherthat, the amount specified by the State Government underthe preceding proviso shall not exceed fifty per cent. of themarket value of such land ascertained as per the currentAnnual Statement of Rates published under the provisions ofthe Maharashtra Stamp (Determination of True Market Valueof Property) Rules, 1995.] (4) [On payment of the amount referred to in the firstproviso to sub-section (3),-(i) no further proceedings for violation of the provisions of -31- W.P.No.135.2020+2subsection (1) or sub-section (2) shall be initiated;(ii) where the proceedings are already initiated before thedate of commencement of the Maharashtra AgriculturalLands (Ceiling on Holdings) (Amendment) Act, 2018, suchproceedings shall abate and the Collector shall make an orderto that effect.]54.Upon perusal of Section 29 of the Ceiling on HoldingsAct, it cannot be disputed that the Collector is empowered toregularise the transfers upon payment of market value. In the presentcase, the order of regularisation has been passed by the AdditionalCollector. However, in the order passed by the Additional Collector,the directions are issued for making adjustment of the penaltypayable from the amount of compensation which is admissible to therespondent No. 6 under the National Highways Act for acquisition ofland. The orders regarding the disbursement of compensation to theclaimants in respect of the land acquired under the NationalHighways Act can be passed only by the ‘Competent Authority’. 55.The Additional Collector is not conferred with the powersunder the National Highway Act, to exercise the power of CompetentAuthority and issue directions for disbursement of the amount ofcompensation. In the present case, the SDO and Competent Authorityhad merely sought guidance, considering that there was an entry -32- W.P.No.135.2020+2regarding the contravention of restricted ownership in the revenuerecord. On such guidance being sought, treating the saidcommunication to be suo-moto proceedings at the behest of theCompetent Authority and SDO, the Additional Collector has assumedthe powers of Competent Authority as well as the Collector anddecided the issue of disbursement of compensation and regularisationof transfer of land purchased by the respondent No. 6 in proceedingswhich have been decided by way of common order. Though theparties were called upon and heard by the Additional Collector,however, while passing the order, the Additional Collector hasassumed the powers of Competent Authority under the NationalHighway Act. 56.Section 3 of the National Highways Act provides thedefinition of “Competent Authority”, which reads thus :3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwiserequires,-(a) “competent authority” means any person or authoirtyauthorised by the Central Government, by notification inthe Official Gazette, to perform the functions thecompetent authority for such area as may be specified inthe notification;57.Section 3-H of the National Highways Act which confers -33- W.P.No.135.2020+2powers of Competent Authority reads thus :3-H. Deposit and payment of amount.-(1) The amount determined under section 3G shall bedeposited by the Central Government in such manner asmay be laid down by rules made in this behalf by thatGovernment, with the competent authority before takingpossession of the land.(2) As soon as may be after the amount has been depositedunder sub-section (1), the competent authority shall onbehalf of the Central Government pay the amount to theperson or persons entitled thereto.(3) Where several persons claim to be interested in theamount deposited under sub-section (1), the competentauthority shall determine the persons who in its opinionare entitled to receive the amount payable to each of them.(4) If any dispute arises as to the apportionment of theamount or any part thereof or to any person to whom thesame or any part thereof is payable, the competentauthority shall refer the dispute to the decision of theprincipal civil court of original jurisdiction within the limitsof whose jurisdiction the land is situated.(5) Where the amount determined under section 3G by thearbitrator is in excess of the amount determined by thecompetent authority, the arbitrator may award interest atnine per cent. per annum on such excess amount from thedate of taking possession under section 3D till the date ofthe actual deposit thereof.(6) Where the amount determined by the arbitrator is inexcess of the amount determined by the competentauthority, the excess amount together with interest, if any, -34- W.P.No.135.2020+2awarded under sub-section (5) shall be deposited by theCentral Government in such manner as may be laid downby rules made in this behalf by that Government, with thecompetent authority and the provisions of sub-sections (2)to (4) shall apply to such deposit.58.So far as the order dated 24.12.2019 is concerned, asobserved in the foregoing paragraphs, the Additional Collector haspassed a common order in the capacity of two different CompetentAuthorities who are conferred with powers to pass order under twodifferent enactments viz. under The Maharashtra Agricultural Land(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and The National Highways Act,1956. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Competent Authority is theappropriate authority to issue orders for disbursement ofcompensation under the National Highways Act, 1956 and so far asthe regularisation is concerned, the Collector is the CompetentAuthority to grant such permission by regularising the sale-deedunder the Ceiling on Holdings Act. 59.In the order impugned dated 24.12.2019, the AdditionalCollector has assumed the powers under both the enactments. TheAdditional Collector has treated the communication of the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking guidance as an application and hasproceeded to conduct the hearing and has passed the order which isbeyond his jurisdiction. Section 29 of The Maharashtra Agricultural -35- W.P.No.135.2020+2Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 confers power on the Collectorto pass an order regularising the sale-deed which is in contraventionof the provisions of the Act, after the market value of the land hasbeen ascertained and the specified amount is deposited by the personclaiming regularisation. 60.Alongwith ascertainment of market value, an inquiry isalso required to be conducted, for ensuring that there are no otherlegal impediments in regularisation. The Additional Collector,Osmanabad has not called for any report which contemplates adetailed inquiry and has passed an order thereby directing Shri.Bharat Chede to deposit the 50% of the market value of the landwhich is determined by the Sub-Registrar, and after deducting theamount of Rs. 1,70,000/- which is quantified towards the marketvalue, rest of the amount of compensation was directed to bedisbursed to Bharat Chede. 61.From the impugned order itself, it is evident that theAdditional Collector has combined both the proceedings under twodifferent enactments and has directed to grant regularisation as wellas compensation to Bharat Chede. Whenever there is a proposal forregularisation, it is required to be proceeded on the basis of inquiry, Aformat is made available for the inquiry the details are to be filled in -36- W.P.No.135.2020+2during inquiry and upon receiving the report in the format whichcontains the details of the land under various heads. The Collectorcan pass an order based on such report. From the order impugnedand the observations made therein, it is evident that no such reportwas received by the Additional Collector. 62.From the above provision, it is evident that theAdditional Collector has committed a jurisdictional error whileexercising the powers of Competent Authority under the NationalHighways Act. 63.Hence, apart from the fact that the order is passedwithout jurisdiction, it is also passed without adhering to theappropriate procedure. Therefore, on that count also, the orderpassed by the Additional Collector deserves to be quashed and setaside.64.Similarly, Writ Petition No. 11840 of 2021 as well as inWrit Petition No. 14999 of 2019, the petitioners have challenged theorder dated 29.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (GeneralAdministration), Osmanabad. So far as this order is concerned, theorder was passed after affording opportunity of hearing to the partiesincluding the petitioner as per the directions issued by this Court inWrit Petition No. 11089 of 2019. -37- W.P.No.135.2020+265.Upon perusal of the order dated 29.11.2019, the orderrefers to the application made by Smt. Tejashree Shelke wherein shehas made a request to regularise her sale-deed, since the sale-deedwas executed in contravention of restriction imposed under Section29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act. In view of the amendment made toSection 29 of the Act, she has filed an application showing herwillingness to deposit 50% of the amount of market value as specifiedby the Government. Upon such application being made, she wasinformed about the quantified amount and she has deposited the saidamount. 66. The objection of the petitioner in Writ Petition No.14999 of 2019 to the order of regularisation is mainly on the groundthat he has never executed a sale-deed which is regularised by theconcerned authority. Therefore, he has challenged the order ofregularisation. 67.So far as objection by petitioner in Writ Petition No.11870 of 2021 is concerned, he is a transferee first in the point oftime in whose favour the land has been transferred by way of sale-deed, hence, he has a prior claim over all others in whose favour theland has been transferred by way of various sale-deed by the vendorShri. Maruti Kshirsagar. If the regularisation order dated 29.11.2019 -38- W.P.No.135.2020+2and 24.12.2019 are not quashed, his rights are adversely affectedsince no land remains to be regularised in his favour. He has alsochallenged it on the ground that in the report filed by the Tahsildaron 25.07.2019, though various objections were raised to theregularisation in favour of Smt. Tejashree Shelke, an order grantingregularisation is passed on 29.11.2019. There are various objectionsfor regularisation of the land which would make the transferimpermissible. There is a substance in the contentions of thepetitioner in Writ Petition No. 11870 of 2021.68.Inspite of objections recorded by the land owners to thetransfer of land with other objections, the Deputy Collector has passedan order granting regularisation of sale-deed. It also needs to beappreciated that from the order itself, it can be gathered that theDeputy Collector is not empowered to grant such regularisation. Inthe order itself, the Deputy Collector has observed that the sale-deedNo. 753 of 2012 to the extent of 0H-46R, is regularised subject to theapproval of the Competent Authority. This itself indicates that theDeputy Collector (General Administration), Osmanabad is not theCompetent Authority who is empowered to pass the order.69.As has been observed here-in-above, the Collector isempowered under Section 29 of the Ceiling on Holdings Act to pass -39- W.P.No.135.2020+2the order regularising the sale-deeds which are executed incontravention of the restrictions imposed by Section 29 of the Act.Though the learned Senior Advocate Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, relyingon definition of ‘Collector’ in Section 2(6) of the Ceiling and HoldingsAct submits that ‘Collector’ includes Additional Collector, andAssistant Collector or Deputy Collector, assuming that the Collectorincludes Additional Collector, Assistant Collector however, whileexercising the powers under the Ceiling on Holding Act, those powersare required to be exercised by Deputy Collector or Assistant Collector(Land Reforms) and not by the Deputy Collector (GeneralAdministration). Even otherwise, the order itself is self-speakingwhich makes the order passed by the Deputy Collector subject to theapproval of the Competent Authority.70.Hence, in view of the fact that the Deputy Collector hasnot taken into consideration the report which contained variousobjections to the transfer of land as well as the fact that the petitionerin Writ Petition No. 11870 of 2021, has a prior claim over all others,the order impugned becomes unsustainable.71.Hence, in view of the conspectus of the matter, the orderdated 29.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Collector (GeneralAdministration), Osmanabad in File No. 2019/GA/LR-2/KV-322 -40- W.P.No.135.2020+2deserves to be quashed and set aside.72.Accordingly, both the orders i.e. order dated 24.12.2019passed by Additional Collector, Osmanabad and order dated29.11.2019 passed by Deputy Collector (General Administration),Osmanabad, which are challenged in Writ Petition No. 135 of 2020,Writ Petition No. 14999 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 11840 of 2021are quashed and set aside by remanding the matter back to theCompetent Authority who is empowered to decide the regularisationof sale-deed which is made in contravention of Section 29 of theCeiling on Holdings Act for passing fresh orders after grantingopportunity to all the interested parties in accordance with theprovisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings)Act, 196173.Similarly, in view of quashing of order dated 24.12.2019passed by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad, the CompetentAuthority shall take appropriate decision for the disbursement ofcompensation to whoever is found to be legally entitled to receive thesame in respect of acquisition of land. 74.With the above directions, all the three writ petitions aredisposed of. Rule made absolute in above terms. [MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.]Omkar Joshi