High Court
Legal Reasoning
{1} RA-48-2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADREVIEW APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2023IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8087 OF 2021Bansi s/o Ganpat SalveAge: 85 years, Occu: AgriculturistR/o Dahegaon, Avahana, Tal: Sillod,District- Aurangabad....APPLICANT[LR of Owner of the suitproperty not impleaded in Writ Petition]VERSUS1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai.2. The Additional Collector, Aurangabad.3. The Tehsildar, Sillod, Taluka: Sillod, District: Aurangabad.4. Shaikh Sattar s/o Shaikh Begu Age: 63 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Dahegaon, Avahana, Tal: Sillod, District- Aurangabad.5. Shaikh Ibrahim s/o Shaikh Begu Age: 77 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Naregaon, Taluka and District- Aurangabad.6. Abdul Rahim s/o Shaikh Karim Age: 25 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Jainuddin Colony, Tal: Sillod, District- Aurangabad.7. Abdul Ajim s/o Shaikh KarimBhagyawant Punde
Legal Reasoning
{2} RA-48-2023 Age: 20 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Jainuddin Colony, Tal: Sillod, District- Aurangabad.8. Rashidabi w/o Shaikh Karim Age: 52 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Jainuddin Colony, Tal: Sillod, District- Aurangabad.9. Shaikh Khalil s/o Shaikh Ibrahim Age: 36 years, Occu: Agriculturist R/o. Naregaon, Taluka and District- Aurangabad....RESPONDENTS [Nos. 1 to 3 are Ori. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Writ Petition, and Nos. 4 to 9 are Ori. Petitioners in Writ Petition]Mr. Amol Joshi, Advocate for ApplicantMr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 9.Mr. D.J. Patil, AGP for State....… CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J. RESERVED ON : 4th OCTOBER, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 14th DECEMBER, 2024 ORDER :1.This application is filed by applicant seeking review oforder dated 13th June, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 8087 of2021 on the ground that he was not made party to the writpetition.2.Applicant claims to be legal representative of GanpatSalve, original owner of land Gut No. 38 (Old Survey No. 10)Bhagyawant Punde {3} RA-48-2023admeasuring 3 Hectare 69 Are situated at village- Dahegaon,Taluka- Sillod, District- Aurangabad (for short ‘suit land’).Respondents No. 4 to 9 filed writ petition arraying respondentsNo. 1 to 3 as party respondents challenging the order dated08.07.2021 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,Aurangabad in Case No. 08/A/2020/Aurangabad and order dated19.11.2019 passed by Additional Collector in case No.Ja.Kra.Bhusudhar/Inam/M.Mash/dahihaon/Ni.Ku/Cr-04/2018 andseeking direction to the 2nd respondent therein to allow theapplication dated 28.11.2018 submitted by petitioners forregularization of sale deed in respect of suit land.3.Heard learned advocate for applicant, learned SeniorAdvocate for respondent Nos. 4 to 9 and learned AGP for State.Perused the application and documents placed on record. 4.Learned advocate for applicant vehemently submitsthat though applicant is successor of Pandu and Ganpat andthough he was party to the earlier round of litigation up to thisCourt, deliberately he was not made party in writ petition beforethis Court. Respondents No. 4 to 9/petitioners were well awareof the fact that applicant had interest in the suit land and he isnecessary party, in spite of that he was not made party to theBhagyawant Punde {4} RA-48-2023writ petition and on this ground alone the order passed in writpetition needs to be reviewed and writ petition is liable to bedismissed. The suit land is a inferior vatan land and it could nothave been held to be ‘madat mash inam’ land and therefore,petitioners were not entitled to claim relief by relying onamended provision of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams andCash Grants Act, 1954 (for short ‘Act of 1954’).5.Learned Senior Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 9,on the other hand, submits that in the earlier round of litigationin the order passed by Hon’ble Minister the suit land was held asmadat mash inam land. Said order is confirmed by this Court inthe writ petition No. 382 of 2018. The applicant was party to thesaid litigation, so also, to the review application, in which thisCourt directed the District Collector to issue paper publication,which was issued, and after conducting inquiry, land was held tobe madat mash inam land. He further submits that only Panduwas given occupancy certificate of suit land, hence, otherpredecessors of Pandu had no legal right in the suit land. Hefurther submits that even there is similar amendment in theMaharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, therebyregularizing the transfer. Therefore, there is no merit in theBhagyawant Punde {5} RA-48-2023review and same may be dismissed.6.It is a matter of record that as per certificate issuedby Tahsildar, Sillod, dated 10.10.1969 it was certified that SurveyNo. 10 of village- Dahigaon, Taluka- Sillod has been abolishedunder the Act of 1954 and regranted in favour of Pandu RamjiSalve, resident of Dahegaon and he has deposited full occupancyprice. In appeal preferred by respondents No. 4 to 9 before theHon’ble Minister against Sandu Ramji Salve, Pandu Ramji Salve,applicant being legal heir of Ganpat, Bhima Raghu Salve andSonu Keru Salve, deceased through Lrs. Bharat Sonu Salve, theHon’ble Minister concluded that the suit land is governed by theAct of 1954 and since respondents have failed to prove that thesuit land is madat mash inam land with proper evidence, theamendment in the Act of 1954 for regularization could not bemade applicable to the suit land.Respondents challenged said order before this Courtin Writ Petition No. 382/2018 which was dismissed by this Court.Thereafter in review application No. 176/2018 in Writ PetitionNo. 382/2018 filed by respondents this Court has observed that;“6.Nevertheless, since these applicants have madea representation dated 28/11/2018, the DistrictCollector, Aurangabad is at liberty to consider the sameBhagyawant Punde {6} RA-48-2023within the framework of the law. It be noted that thisCourt has not expressed any opinion in favour of saidrepresentation.7.The District Collector, Aurangabad would give anopportunity of hearing before passing an order on thesaid representation, in view of the submission that theDistrict Collector has already issued notices throughpaper publication and is considering therepresentation.” 7.Pursuant to the application of respondents dated28.11.2018, Collector directed Tahsildar to submit a report. Apublic notice was published in local paper, Daily Samna on02.12.2018 calling upon interested parties in the suit land tocontest the claim of respondents. The proclamation was alsoplaced on the notice board of Village Panchayat, Dahegaon andpanchnama to that effect was effected on 11.12.2018. On thesame day, panchnama is conducted which states that after goingto the suit land panchas have found that respondents No. 4 to 9are in possession of the suit land and their names are there inthe 7/12 extract.8.Accordingly, inquiry was conducted by the Tahsildarand a report is submitted that suit land is madat mash inamland, which was regranted in favour of Pandu Salve. In spite ofthis position on record, the Collector has rejected theBhagyawant Punde
Decision
{7} RA-48-2023representation stating that appeal is pending with the Hon’bleMinister.9.Considering this position on record and amendedprovision, this Court allowed the writ petition and passed orderunder review, holding that in view of amended provision it wasnecessary for respondents-authorities to regularize the saletransaction between Pandu Salve and Shaikh Begu.10.In the light of aforestated facts, this Court is of theopinion that applicant has failed to prove that he is legal heir ofPandu Salve, he therefore, cannot be said to be a necessaryparty to the writ petition filed by respondents in the peculiarfacts of the present case. Fact remains that applicant failed torespond to the proclamation issued before conducting inquiry inthe representation/application dated 28.11.2018. Applicant,therefore, has failed to make out a case for review. Applicationsans merit is dismissed.11.It is made clear that above observations are limitedto the extent of deciding the review application. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]Bhagyawant Punde