Bombay High Court
Rajendra Sambhaji Bagul And Another vs Ravindra Purushottam Birole And ... on 20 June, 2019
Author: V. K. Jadhav
Bench: V. K. Jadhav
WP-8788-15pd
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8788 OF 2015
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12472 OF 2015
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8788 OF 2015
1. Rajendra s/o Sambhaji Bagul
Age : 36 years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Birewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Sanjay s/o Sambhaji Bagul
Age : 34 years, Occ : Nil,
R/o Birewadi, Tq. Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Divisional Commissioner,
Nashik Division, Nashik.
2. The Collector, Ahmednagar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sangamner Division, Sangamner,
Dist. Ahmednagar.
4. The Tahsildar, Sangamner,
Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.
5. The Hon'ble Minister
for Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
6. U-Tech Sugar Ltd.,
2055 Anant Residency,
Sadashiv Peth, Tilak Road
Pune - 411 030.
R/o F-901, Tarzer Park,
Arneshwar, Pune-09
Through its authorized signatory
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-2-
Ravindra s/o Purushottam Birole
Age : 47 years, Occ : Chief Managing Director,
U-Tech Sugar Ltd., 2055
R/o. F-901, Tarzer Park,
Arneshwar, Pune-09. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotia, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 6.
.....
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13019 OF 2015
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8788 OF 2015
VILAS S/O YASHWANT BAGUL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK
AND OTHERS
.....
Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotia, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.6.
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate
for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.
.....
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2015
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 8788 OF 2015
RAJENDRA S/O SAMBHAJI BAGUL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
RAVINDRA S/O PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE AND ANOTHER
.....
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate
for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. P. K. Lakhotia, AGP for Respondent State.
.....
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-3-
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
RESERVED ON : 05.10.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 20.06.2019
PER COURT:-
1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by
respondent no.5- Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of Maharashtra, in Revision Application No. RTS-
3315/932/P.N./149/G-6, the petitioners, who were original respondent
nos. 5 and 6 in the aforesaid revision application, preferred this Writ
Petition.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as follows:
a. The suit property involved in the present matter is land Gat no.
15 (original survey nos. 7 to 15), situated at village Kauthe Malkapur,
Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar and it is Hadola Watan land.
Though the matter concerns with the permission to convert the suit
property into non-agricultural use, certain facts, as pleaded by both
the parties, are required to be mentioned.
b. The State Government has abolished the Watan lands as per
the provisions of the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act,
1958 (for short, "the Act of 1958"). The petitioners claim to be the
heirs and legal representatives of the original watandar Shri Samba
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-4-
Mohanna Bagul and co-owner of the land Gat no. 15, which is re-
granted by the State Government. Thus, the petitioners claim to be
the interested parties in land Gat nos. 15/9, 15/10 and 15/17 which is
disputed in the present writ petition. The petitioners have already filed
Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013 in the Court of learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Sangamner claiming partition in the suit property and
challenging the sale deeds executed in favour of Shri Ravindra
Birole, Shri Shantanu Birole and Smt. Ashwini Birole in the said civil
suit. Petitioners claim that their valuable rights are included in the suit
property and hence the petitioners have filed the above mentioned
suit for partition by metes and bounds. The said Ravindra Birole and
two others filed an application under Section 9-A of the Civil
Procedure Code and a separate application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the Civil Procedure Code contending that Special Civil Suit No. 27 of
2013 is not maintainable. Both the applications were heard on merits
and the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner, by order
dated 24.04.2015 held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain
the said suit so also the issue of limitation is a mixed question of
facts and hence the suit itself is maintainable. Against the said order
dated 24.04.2015, Shri Ravindra Birole and two others filed Civil
Revision Application No. 56 of 2015 before this Court and after
hearing both the sides this Court by order dated 27.07.2015
specifically held that the suit filed by the present petitioners along
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-5-
with others in the Civil Court is very well maintainable. The said suit
is still pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangamner.
c. According to the petitioners, though the said Mahar Watan land
was abolished in the year 1965 by the State Government, thereafter,
the State Government has decided to re-grant the lands in favour of
the original watandars, who were in actual possession of the said
watan properties. According to the petitioners, though there were no
re-grant orders, some of the watandars illegally sold portion of Gat
no. 15 and tried to effect mutation entry nos. 850 and 851. It is the
case of the petitioners that even prior to the re-grant of land gat no.
15 to the original owners, it appears from the record that Arjun Bagul,
Thaka Bagul, Dhana Bagul, Govind Laxman Bagul, so also Yeshu
Arjuna Bagul and Laxman Muka Bagul illegally sold part of land gat
no. 15 (old survey no.8) on 22.09.1966 prior to re-grant of which
mutation entry nos. 850 and 851 were taken. However, the said
mutation entries came to be rejected by the concerned Tahsildar on
the ground that the land itself was not re-granted. However,
according to the petitioners, one Mr. Ravindra Birole claims that the
re-grant order was passed in favour of Yeshu Arjuna, Thaka Bagul
alongwith 10 others by re-grant order no.137 of 1969 as Najrana was
paid on 01.04.1965. It is tried to be shown by said Ravindra Birole
that the mutation entry of the said re-grant order was taken on record
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-6-
and the mutation entry nos. 928 and 929 came to be sanctioned by
the Tahsildar on 11.02.1970. The petitioners further claim that said
Ravindra Birole and his family members had purchased land from
Gat nos.15/9, 15/10 and 15/17 admeasuring 30 R. under registered
sale deed Nos.9922/2012, 6477/2012 and 4792/2012 without
permission of the competent authority. According to the petitioners, in
view of the amended provisions of the Act of 1958, permission to
execute sale deeds of Hadola Watan land is necessary. So far as the
mutation entries 456, 457 and 458 in respect of some portion of the
land Gat no. 15 manipulated by earlier vendor of Mr. Ravindra Birole,
namely, Vitthal Laxman Sagar in collusion with the Revenue
authorities, one Vijay Jangu Bagul made a complaint to the
concerned Sub-Divisional Officer bringing to his notice that even prior
to re-grant, the sale deeds came to be executed in respect of the
land Gat no. 15 by some persons and though the earlier mutation
entries came to be rejected, yet mutation entry nos. 456, 457 and
458 were fraudulently taken. The Sub-Divisional Officer initiated suo
motu revenue proceedings against the said mutation entry nos. 456,
457 and 458 respectively. Said Ravindra Birole filed Writ Petition
No.7513 of 2013 before this Court and this Court granted status quo
in the matter which continued from time to time.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-7-
d. According to the petitioners, though Ravindra Birole claims to
have purchased the land out of land Gat no. 15 for agricultural
purposes, later on in the year 2012-13, he has established a
company, namely, U-Tech Sugar Limited (respondent no.6 herein).
Thereafter, said Ravindra Birole has applied to the Sub-Divisional
Officer for granting NA permission for conversion of use of the land
for the said sugar industry. Respondent no.6 has applied under
Section 44(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for
short, " the MLR Code") for non-agricultural permission of the land in
Gat no. 15/9 ad-measuring 3 H. 95 R, old Gat no. 15/10 ad-
measuring 3 H. 55 R., old Gat no. 15/17 ad-measuring 3 H. 98 R,
total area ad-measuring 11 H. 48 R. bearing alleged new Gat no.
15/3. After receipt of the said proposal seeking permission for
conversion of the use of agricultural land into non-agricultural land in
respect of the property as detailed above, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sangamner has forwarded copy of the said proposal on 08.02.2013
to the Town Planning Department for necessary action and
accordingly, the inquiry has begun. The Assistant Director of Town
Planning has sanctioned only a part NA layout plan on certain
condition by order dated 14.03.2013 and it has been observed in the
said sanction order that some area of the said land comes under
forest division, where development is not permitted. The said portion
of the land was excluded from development plan. Further, said
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-8-
Ravindra Birole was directed to submit the NOC of the Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board.
e. It is further case of the petitioners that thereafter, on
15.04.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer directed respondent no.4
Tahsildar Sangamner to comply with the order dated 14.03.2013 and
even said Ravindra Birole was also informed to comply with the
deficiencies as pointed out in the letter/order dated 14.03.2013.
Thereafter, respondent no.4 Tahsildar has directed the Circle Officer,
Sakur, Taluka Sangamner to ascertain whether there is any complaint
in respect of the ownership right of said Ravindra Birole. The Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sangamner, by order dated 07.05.2013, rejected
the proposal for NA permission as the compliance as directed was
not made in time. On 07.08.2013, for the first time, the NOC issued
by the Pollution Control Board was produced on record by Ravindra
Birole. As against the order dated 07.05.2013 rejecting the proposal
of NA permission, said Ravindra Birole had filed Writ Petition No.
7827 of 2013. However, the said Writ Petition was disposed of by this
Court with liberty to the said Ravindra Birole to adopt the remedy of
appeal. Said Ravindra Birole had filed appeal no. 49 of 2013 before
the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik challenging the order dated
07.05.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer rejecting his
proposal seeking NA permission. The present petitioners had filed an
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-9-
application for intervention in the said appeal and the Additional
Commissioner, Nashik allowed the said application. Thereafter, the
petitioners had filed a detailed reply bringing to the notice of the
Additional Commissioner their valuable rights in respect of the said
property. By order dated 27.01.2014, the learned Additional
Commissioner has partly allowed the appeal of Mr. Ravindra Birole
and remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to reconsider
and verify the point nos. 1 to 4, as formulated in the order and further
directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to verify whether hissas and pot-
hissas as mentioned in the 7/12 extract are in consonance with the
hissas (shares) as appearing in the measurement map. The learned
Additional Commissioner has also directed the Sub-Divisional Officer
to decide the matter afresh on its merits.
f. According to the petitioners, on 18.03.2014, said Ravindra
Birole alongwith respondent no.6 herein, for the first time have filed
Writ Petition No. 2659 of 2014 before this Court challenging the order
dated 27.01.2014 instead of filing an appeal. The said Writ Petition
No.2659 of 2014 and the earlier Writ Petition No. 7513 of 2013
remained pending for many days. According to the petitioners, after
the Assembly elections held in the month October, 2014, when the
BJP party came into power, said Ravindra Birole has illegally and
malafidely withdrawn the aforesaid Writ Petitions though opposed by
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-10-
the present petitioners and before that, during pendency of the Writ
Petitions, respondent no.6 herein, who was not a party in that
capacity before the Commissioner, has illegally and malafidely
preferred Revision before respondent no.5 directly. According to the
petitioners, the hearing was scheduled before the Minister on
16.04.2015 and the petitioners had appeared before the Hon'ble
Minister through an Advocate and sought adjournment and
accordingly, next date was given on 23.04.2015. Even though the
petitioners have specifically requested for supply of copies of the
documents, no documents, annexed to the revision application, were
supplied to the petitioners and they were directed to file reply within
one week. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Minister without actually hearing
the matter on merits, closed the said matter for orders directly. On
13.05.2015, respondent No.5 Hon'ble Minister has passed the
impugned order and it was never intimated to the present petitioners
as required under law. The Hon'ble Minister by impugned order dated
13.05.2015, has allowed the revision application filed by respondent
no.6 herein, set aside the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the
Additional Commissioner and further directed the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sangamner to grant NA permission for industrial use as per
the discussion made in the body of the order. The Hon'ble Minister
has further stated that the decision given by him is subject to the
outcome of the pending civil suit. Hence, this Writ Petition.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-11-
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the impugned order dated 13.05.2015, on the face of it,
is illegal and arbitrary for the reasons that the same is cryptic and
unreasoned order and the same is passed without deciding the
contentions raised by the present petitioners. Even though the
petitioners have requested for oral hearing, the same came to be
denied arbitrarily. Learned senior counsel submits that the
contentions raised by the petitioners in their written arguments were
not at all considered by respondent no.5/Hon'ble Minister. The
petitioners were only supplied the copy of the revision application but
the documents annexed to the revision application were never
supplied to the petitioners. Though it was specifically brought to the
notice of the Hon'ble Minister, yet the documents were not supplied.
Hence, the impugned order itself is in violation of the principles of
natural justice. The learned senior counsel submits that the order of
the Additional Commissioner dated 27.01.2014 came to be
challenged before the Hon'ble Minister in the Revision filed on
13.03.2015. Though there is delay of more than one year, yet no
application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. The
Hon'ble Minister has decided the said revision on merits without
condoning the delay. The learned senior counsel submits that
respondent no.6 has deliberately not filed the statutory second
appeal against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Additional
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-12-
Commissioner and preferred the revision before the Minister on
13.03.2015. The learned senior counsel submits that it is the part of
record that the Hon'ble Minister, within a period of seven days, has
heard and allowed the said revision petition. Learned senior counsel
submits that the revision itself is not maintainable before respondent
no.5/Hon'ble Minister since the matter was remanded by the
Commissioner directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to make an inquiry
into the matter on certain points as formulated in the order. Thus, the
revision before the Hon'ble Minister is premature and the same could
not have been entertained. Though the remedy of statutory second
appeal is available under the MLR Code, the exercise of revisional
powers was totally unwarranted and uncalled for and the same has
been done with the sole intention to favour respondent no.6. Learned
counsel submits that the so-called sale deeds executed in favour of
Ravindra Birole are itself hit by the provisions of the Act of 1958 and
hence at any rate, the NA permission could not have been granted as
the sale deeds in favour of Ravindra Birole and the U-Tech Sugar
Limited are itself void ab initio. The Hon'ble Minister has not
considered the effect of the amendments of the years 2002 and 2008
in the Act of 1958. There is no provision in the amended Act of 1958
to pay 13 times Najrana to convert new tenure land into old tenure
land. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are the co-
owners of the land Gat no. 15. So far as the sale deeds executed in
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-13-
favour of Ravindra Birole are concerned, the persons, who have got
no absolute title, have executed the said sale deeds. All the sale
deeds are the subject matter of challenge in special civil suit no. 27
of 2013 before the civil court. Learned senior counsel submits that
land Gat no. 15 comprises the huge portion of land admeasuring
92.59 H. The said land was allotted to eight families towards the
inferior watan which is not partitioned by metes and bounds and the
shares of persons are yet not fixed. There is no measurement map
prepared by issuing notice to all the land holders and adjacent land
holders. Respondent no.6 has sought NA permission of the part of
land Gat no. 15 without making any actual measurement. Learned
senior counsel submits that there is no deemed NA permission and
on a simple application without compliance of any statutory rules, the
permission for NA use cannot be granted. Said Ravindra Birole has
applied for NA permission on 07.02.2013 wherein the statutory
authority has directed him for various compliance by orders dated
14.03.2013, 28.03.2013 and 15.04.2013 respectively. Thus, the
submission of the said respondent no.6 about expiry of 90 days and
the deemed NA permission is irrelevant and cannot be made
applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned senior
counsel submits that the suit lands were never transferred to U-Tech
Sugar Limited/respondent no.6 under the registered documents. On
07.02.2013, the said Ravindra Birole and Ashwini Birole have applied
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-14-
for NA permission under Section 44-A of the MLR Code and it
nowhere discloses that the said permission is sought for respondent
no.6 herein. There is no document for transfer of property from
Ravindra Birole and said Ashwini Birole to respondent no.6 herein.
Thus, respondent no.6 had never applied for NA use of the suit land.
The learned senior counsel submits that there are valid questions
raised before the authorities below regarding (a) inquiry of title,
(b) compliance of rules and regulations of the Regional Planning, (c)
compliance of pollution control, (d) proper measurement plan and
location co-related to record of right, (e) verification of the record of
T.I.L.R., (f) objection of the original owner with respect to rights under
the provisions of the Act of 1958. Learned senior counsel submits
that the Additional Commissioner has rightly directed the lower
authorities to make a proper inquiry and to pass appropriate order
afresh on its own merits.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in order to
substantiate his contentions, placed reliance on the following cases.
1. Nagarjuna Construction Company Limited vs.
Government of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported
in (2008) 16 SCC 276.
2. U.O.I. and Ors. vs. Jai Prakash Singh and Anr.,
reported in AIR 2007 SC 1363.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-15-
3. M/s. Mangalore Ganesh Beedi Works vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Mysore and another,
reported in AIR 2005 SC 1308.
4. Union of India and Others vs. Sanjay Jethi and
Another, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 116.
5. Rama Narayan Mali vs. Additional Collector, Thane &
Ors., reported in 2008 (2) All MR 426.
6. Vithal Ramchandra Devkhar & Anr. vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2001 (3) All MR 872.
7. A. V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. vs. Government of A.P.
and Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1546.
8. T. Vijendradas & Anr. vs. M. Subramanian & Ors.,
reported in 2008 (1) ALL MR 446 (S.C.).
9. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir vs. District Collector, Raigad
and Ors., reported in AIR 2012 SC 1339.
10. State Bank of Travancore vs. Kingston Computers
India Private Limited, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 524.
11. Chandrika Jha vs. State of Bihar and Others, reported
in (1984) 2 SCC 41.
12. Manohar Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra and others,
reported in (2012) 3 SCC 619.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-16-
5. Learned AGP for the respondent State and its authorities
submits that respondent no.6 had applied before respondent no.3-
Sub-Divisional Officer for getting non-agriculture (NA) permission for
industrial use of the land Gat nos. 15/9, 15/10, 15/17 (new Gat no.
15/3 ad-measuring 11 H. 48 R.) situated at Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka
Sangamner on 07.02.2013. He submits that since respondent no.6
has not complied with the queries mentioned in letter dated
15.04.2013 issued by respondent no.3/Sub-Divisional Officer in given
time limit, the said application dated 07.02.2013 came to be rejected
by order dated 07.05.2013. The said order came to be challenged by
respondent no.6 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in
Appeal No. 49 of 2013, which came to be decided by order dated
27.01.2014 and the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik remanded the
matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry on the
given points. Being aggrieved, respondent no.6 preferred Revision
Application No. 932 of 2015 before respondent no.5/Hon'ble Minister.
By the impugned order dated 13.05.2015, the Hon'ble Minister
allowed the said revision and the order dated 27.01.2014 passed in
appeal no. 49 of 2013 by the Divisional Commissioner, Nashik came
to be set aside.
6. Learned AGP further submits that in pursuance of the said
order dated 13.05.2015 passed by the Hon'ble Minister, in Revision
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-17-
Application No. 932 of 2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer has issued a
letter dated 02.09.2015 to respondent no.6 and thereby directed to
deposit 50% amount of Najrana towards the land in dispute and also
directed to deposit the measurement fees as per the sanctioned
layout plan. Accordingly, respondent no.6 has deposited 50%
Najrana amount and also the measurement fees in the State Bank of
India.
7. Learned AGP submits that so far as the procedure under
Sections 44(1) and 44(2) of the MLR Code is concerned, respondent
no.3/Sub-Divisional Officer has issued a letter dated 15.04.2013 to
respondent no.6 and called for compliance of the total four queries.
In compliance of the mandate of the above said provisions of the
MLR Code, the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar
had conducted a detailed enquiry in respect of the land under N.A.
and the Tahsildar forwarded its report to the Sub-Divisional Officer.
Learned AGP submits that the office of the Town Planning
Department had conducted an enquiry and submitted its
recommendations in favour of respondent no.6 on 14.03.2013 and
respondent no.6 has complied the queries suggested by the Sub-
Divisional Officer. Even though respondent no.6 has submitted some
documents belatedly, the same were submitted with the Sub-
Divisional Officer and therefore, steps as required under Sections
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-18-
44(1) and 44(2) of the MLR Code were taken. The further procedure
of giving N.A. permission to the land in dispute for the industrial
purpose was completed by issuing order dated 22.09.2015 in favour
of respondent no.6.
8. The learned AGP further submits that the Sub-Divisional
Officer has decided the application of respondent no.6 within 90 days
and intimated the concerned parties accordingly. Therefore, the
submission of respondent no.6 about deemed permission of N.A.
carries no substance. The present petitioners and others have filed
Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 213 before the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Sangamner for partition and injunction in respect of the land
in dispute. The said suit is pending. The Sub-Divisional Officer has
issued order granting N.A. permission to respondent no.6
considering the fact that the civil court had rejected application
Exhibit 5 filed by the petitioners in Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013
and specifically observed that the petitioners have no concern with
the lands Gat nos. 15/9, 15/10 and 15/17 (new Gat no. 15/3 ad-
measuring 11 H. 48 R.) purchased by respondent no.6. The learned
trial court has also observed that the present petitioners have
separate watan property Gat nos. 163/1 to 164, 166 and 10 and as
such, prima facie, they are not concern with the suit property.
Respondent no. 6 has given an undertaking in the Special Civil Suit
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-19-
No. 27 of 2013 and as such the final adjudication in the said suit
would be binding on respondent no.6. Respondent no.6 has
deposited the Najrana and necessary charges and hence, the
respondent authority has issued the order granting N.A. permission
which would be subject to the outcome of the result in Special Civil
Suit No. 27 of 2013 and the present writ petition.
9. Learned AGP further submits that the powers exercised by
respondent no.5/Hon'ble Minister are within the parameters of
Section 257 of the MLR Code and as such, the Government can
modify, annul, reverse or pass such orders as it deems fit. The
Hon'ble Minister has exercised the powers under Section 257 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by giving opportunity of hearing to
all the parties and there is no error of jurisdiction.
10. Learned AGP submits that the Sub-Divisional Officer issued
the order of N.A. on 22.09.2015 and an entry to that effect is also
taken on official record on 22.09.2015. However, due to oversight,
the date on the order was wrongly mentioned as 23.09.2015. In fact,
the Sub-Divisional Officer was assigned with official confidential
duties on 23.09.2015 and he had attended the said work at Yerwada
Karagrah Mudranalaya, Pune on 23.09.2015 between 10.55 a.m. to
8.35 p.m. The said error in the date of order occurred due to
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-20-
oversight and no malafides can be attributed to it. The office record
bears truthfulness of passing of the said order on 22.09.2015.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the land Gut
no. 15, situated at Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner, District
Ahmednagar, is admeasuring 292 Acres (92.59 Hec). Respondent
No.6 is having land is 30 acres = (11.48 Hectors), bearing old Gat
Nos. 15/9, 15/10, 15/17 (new Gut No. 15/3), the land under NA.
Initially, the said land was Watan Land. Under Section 4 of the
Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, the Watan Lands
resumed u/s 5 of the said Act were to be re-granted on payment of
price equal to 3 times of full assessment of the said land. The said
land Gat no. 15 was purchased by the promoters of Respondent No.
6 from Ramchandra Sagar (who had purchased it from Bagul in the
year 1966) on 26.06.2012. The land Gat No. 15 was a piece of land
which fell under the category of re-granted land. The State
Government abolished the said Watan lands in 1955 and decided to
re-grant the same to its original owners who were in actual
possession of the said Watan properties. The Government by
General Order dated 12.11.1955 prescribed payment of ten times of
the assessment for Transfer and 3 times for occupancy rights.
Therefore, if the amount 13 times is paid, it is obligatory for Collector
to release land as the original owners paid occupancy price.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-21-
12. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the issue
involved in the present petition relates to Section 44 of MLR Code i.e.
conversion of land from agricultural purpose to non-agricultural
purpose i.e. industrial purpose. The land was re-granted on payment
of Najrana of 10+3 times on 1.4.1965 and 20.7.1965, although formal
re-grant order was issued on 1.1.1969. Accordingly, mutation entry
Nos. 928 and 929 of re-grant order are recorded. Respondent No.6
has undertaken a project of setting up a new Sugar Factory at village
Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar by
securing requisite permissions and licences. There was time limit of 2
years to set up the sugar factory. Failure to observe the time
schedule would have exposed Respondent No.6 to perilous
consequences. Learned counsel submits innocuous and
unsustainable orders are passed by the SDO and the Commissioner
causing serious prejudice to the Respondent No.6 and that too with
an oblique motive. Those orders are rightly set aside by the
Government and the SDO is directed to issue NA permission in
favour of Respondent No.6.
13. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the order
dated 07.05.2013 passed by the SDO is without giving an opportunity
of hearing to respondent no.6. It is not in consonance with the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-22-
provisions of Section 44 (2) (c) r/w Rule 3 r/w Schedule-I r/w Rule 9.
There is no proper application of mind. It is a final order and not
interim. It states that it could be challenged by filing an appeal. The
application for NA permission was rejected on 07.05.2013 on account
of non-compliance with the communication dated 15.04.2013 (within
3 weeks thereafter the order dated 07.05.2013 is passed). The
communication dated 15.04.2013 by itself does not set out any time
limit, nor it states about the consequence of non-compliance. Even
this communication is without giving any opportunity of hearing to the
respondent. The respondent has duly complied with the order dated
15.04.2013. The postal stamp on the said communication is dated
07.09.2013 which means the intervening period is of four months and
the order is ante-dated as 07.05.2013.
14. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that respondent
no.6 has produced the N.O.C. dated 06.08.2013 issued by the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board along with the application dated
07.08.2013. As per the letter dated 13.06.2013, the report of the
Circle Inspector was produced, stating that there is no discrepancy or
objection about the four boundaries. It is a report forming part of the
record of Revenue authorities. Therefore, there was no question of
presuming the existence of any discrepancies about the sub-
divisions recorded in 7/12 extract and the sub-divisions shown in the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-23-
measurement map. Along with the application dated 07.08.2013, the
respondent had complied with requirement no.3 specified in the letter
dated 15.04.2013, whereby the respondent had produced the 7/12
extracts which were called for from the year 1960 to 1992. Although it
was unreasonable and unnecessary requirement and it was a matter
of revenue record available with the revenue authorities, still it has
been complied with. As per letter dated 09.04.2013 and letter dated
04.06.2013, the extract of Gat scheme was furnished by the
respondent. Thus, all the documents which were enumerated in letter
dated 15.04.2013 were duly furnished and complied with by the
respondent.
15. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the direction
to hold inquiry on point Nos. 1 and 2 is bad in law as the adjudication
of issue of dispute regarding title is not within the jurisdiction of SDO/
Commissioner in the proceedings initiated under Section 44 of the
MLR Code. Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013 has already been
instituted in the Civil Court to which Revenue authorities are also
parties. The SDO is not competent to hold a parallel trial. No
prohibitory orders are passed by Civil Court and the application Exh-
5 filed by the petitioners in the suit came to be rejected holding that
the petitioners have no concern with the land in dispute.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-24-
16. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that almost 50
years ago, the predecessors-in-title of intervenors have executed
registered sale deed and parted with possession of the property.
Corresponding mutations are carried out in the revenue record and it
has reached finality. Thereafter, successive transfers are also
effected. Now, after inordinate and unreasonable delay, the
transactions which were settled before 50 years are sought to be
unsettled. The validity of the sale deeds is sought to be questioned.
Ex-facie, it is also hit by Article 59 of the Limitation Act, which
provides the Limitation of three years. Prior to filing of Special Civil
Suit No. 27 of 2013, there was yet another suit filed in the year 1967.
The issue relating to the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on
Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, "the Ceiling Act") is also suo-motu
raised by the Commissioner, which is beyond the scope of enquiry
under Section 44 of M.L.R. Code. The Commissioner has
misdirected himself as to the scope of enquiry and the grounds
assigned in his order are contrary to ratio laid down in the case of
Vinaykumar Kachrulal Abad V/s Hon'ble Minister, Revenue &
Forest 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 854.
17. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the dispute
relating to Inam lands etc., i.e. point Nos. 1 and 2, is the subject
matter of Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013. Moreover, ex-facie, the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-25-
said dispute is artificially raised with malafide intentions. The land
was already converted to old tenure on making payment of 13 times
the occupancy price, vide mutation entry Nos. 928 and 929 r/w the
order of re-grant. Neither the mutation nor the re-grant order is called
in question over a period of 40 years. Moreover, even in the cases
where transfers were effected without previous sanction from the
Collector, even such transfers are sought to be regularized by the
Maharashtra Act No.19 of 2008. The Bombay Inferior Village Watans
Abolition Act, 1958 is accordingly amended. Undisputedly, the
intervenors (Baguls) are not in possession of the property over a
period of last 50 years.
18. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that ground No.3
about the Ceiling Act is also bad in law on account of inherent lack of
jurisdiction. The grounds which are stated in the order are irrelevant
and not germane to the proceedings under Section 44 of the MLR
Code. The grounds which are set out for rejection of Application
under Section 44 (2) (c) are - to secure public health, safety and
convenience and if such use is contrary to any scheme for the
planned development of a village, town or city.
19. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the ground
No.4 is also non-est. On 16.09.2013, the respondent had already
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-26-
solicited an order permitting the respondent to deposit the amount of
50% Najrana. However, no orders are passed therein. The
respondent had always exhibited his readiness and willingness to
deposit 50% Najrana. Still, the fault is being attributed to him in this
behalf. The use of the property for N.A. purpose is not a specified
ground under the Code to reject the application under Section 44 of
MLR Code. Rule No.9 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
(Conversion of Use of Land and N.A. Assessment) Rules, 1969,
deals with regularization of unauthorized use. Undisputedly, the
ground specified in clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 44 is not
applicable to the facts of the present case.
20. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the Hon'ble
Minister held that the reasons recorded by the Additional
Commissioner while passing the remand order dated 27.01.2014 are
not relevant. Respondent No.6 has complied with all the necessary
requirements for conversion of agricultural land into non agricultural
use and there is no need to conduct re-inquiry as observed in the
order of the Commissioner and it will be just and proper to accept an
amount of Najrana as an old condition for permitting non-agricultural
use of land and for grant N.A. permission in favour of respondent No.
6. Respondent No.5-Hon'ble Minister has set aside the order of
Additional Commissioner and allowed the Revision Application by
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-27-
permitting respondent No.6/Revision applicants to convert the land
into non-agricultural use by directing the concerned authorities to
issue such orders.
21. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that respondent
No. 5 held that there is no breach of condition, the suo motu Revision
proceeding initiated by S.D.O. Sangamner are already set aside and
the Town Planning Authority has already given its recommendations
for non-agricultural use of land. The Maharashtra Pollution Control
Board has issued NOC in favour of respondent No.6 on 06.08.2013.
The boundaries of answering respondent are confirmed in
measurement of shares within boundaries and concerned Phalnibara
extract is sanctioned by revenue authorities. There is no injunction
by the Civil Court to issue N.A. permission and the answering
respondent is ready to deposit 50% market value of the land as
Najrana. After considering the factual as well as legal aspects of the
matter, Respondent No.5-Minister allowed the Revision Application
filed by respondent no.6.
22. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that so far as
the scope of inquiry under Section 44 of M.L.R. Code is concerned,
as per section 44(2)(c) thereof, N.A. permission can be rejected
only on the ground that "if it is necessary so to do to secure the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-28-
public health, safety and convenience or if such use is contrary to
any scheme for the planned development of village, town or city in
force under any law for the time being in force". However, in the
orders of the S.D.O. and the Commissioner, the above reasons do
not appear for refusal of conversion and use of land from agricultural
purpose to non-agricultural purpose and as such, the Government
has rightly exercised jurisdiction and passed the impugned order.
23. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that, in so far as
the maintainability of this writ petition is concerned, the issue relating
to the fact that whether the deemed permission to the respondent
was granted for conversion of use of land on failure of the Collector
to refuse permission within the prescribed period of 90 days as
contemplated under Section 44(3) of the MLR Code, essentially has
to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record and for
the said purpose the petitioners have absolutely no role to play and
consequently has no right to challenge the same. The petitioners
earlier sought to intervene in writ petition No. 9282 of 2013 filed
challenging order passed under Section 54 of The Maharashtra
Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 passed by Tahsildar, Sangamner
against present Respondent No.6, by filing Civil Application No. 334
of 2014. By order dated 14.10.2014, the Division Bench of this
Court rejected the said application of the petitioners observing
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-29-
therein that the petitioners are not necessary parties for determining
the challenge raised in the said petition and also that they have
already filed independent proceedings in respect of their grievance,
namely in respect of transfer of land in violation of provisions of the
Act of 1958.
24. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that, admittedly
payment of Najrana (10+3 times) was made by the erstwhile
watandars/owners on 01.04.1965 and 20.07.1965. The re-grant order
was issued on 01.01.1969 and based on the same, ownership of the
land in question was also transferred. The mutation entries for the
said purpose were effected on 11.02.1970. Under the provisions of
the Act of 1958, it is not permissible to review the order of re-grant or
to order any de-novo enquiry as to whether any person is a watandar
or not. Therefore, in absence of any challenge by the petitioners or
anyone to the said re-grant order, the same has attained finality. The
petitioners are trying to press the ground of alleged invalidity of the
said re-grant order in the present petition, which is not permissible
inasmuch as the said re-grant order is not challenged and has
attained finality. The sale deeds in respect of the land were executed
way back in the year 1966. The consideration in respect of such
transactions was paid and the purchasers were placed in possession
of the properties. The mutation entries in respect of the said
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-30-
purchasers were also made thereafter. There is no challenge to
these transactions for a period of more than 50 years. The said
properties were transferred in favour of the promoters of respondent
No.6 sometime in the year 2012-13.
25. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the
application for conversion of the land to non agriculture was moved
before the S.D.O. on 07.02.2013. The said application was forwarded
by S.D.O. to the Town Planning Department for its report on
08.02.2013. On 14.03.2013, the Town Planning Department issued
recommendation subject to compliance of certain conditions. On
28.03.2013, the Tahsildar submitted its report to S.D.O. making
positive recommendation subject to respondent No.6 making
payment of 50% of market value. On 15.04.2013 the S.D.O. pointed
out alleged four deficiencies and called upon the promoter of
respondent No.6 to provide the documents in connection thereto. By
its letter dated 07.08.2013, respondent No.6 informed that the said
deficiencies are removed and also provided necessary documents.
As contemplated under section 44(3) of the MLR Code, upon expiry
of the period of 90 days, for want of communication of any decision
of rejection, it was to be presumed that the permission applied for is
deemed to be granted. Under Section 44(4) of the MLR Code, the
person to whom such deemed permission is granted has to inform
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-31-
the Tahsildar in writing the date on which change of user is
commenced, within 30 days from such date.
26. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that respondent
No.6 informed the Tahsildar in writing on 20.08.2013 that it has
started working on the land considering it as non agriculture land. In
response to the said letter, the S.D.O. by its letter dated 23.08.2013
wrote to the Assistant Director of Town Planning for reconsideration,
and informed respondent No. 6 that the letter dated 20.08.2013 is
being forwarded to the Assistant Director of Town Planning. By letter
dated 05.09.2013, the Assistant Director of Town Planning replied to
S.D.O. that there is no need to reconsider recommendation dated
14.03.2013. Till these communications, it was never said that the
order of rejection of application of respondent No. 6 was passed way
back on 07.05.2013. The envelop by which the said order was
allegedly sent itself shows that it was received sometime in
September, 2013. If the order was passed on 07.05.2013, there was
no reason for the officials communicating about the pendency of
application of respondent No. 6 till September, 2013, as is clear from
the above facts. This shows that the order dated 07.05.2013 was
passed ante-dated for an obvious malafide reason. The stand taken
by respondent No. 3 in its affidavit further fortifies this fact. All these
facts clearly show that the order dated 07.05.2013 was ante-dated
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-32-
order and such an order was not passed within a period of 90 days
as required under Section 44(3) of the MLR Code and therefore, it is
a case of grant of deemed permission.
27. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the suit for
partition claiming 1/8th share in the entire land was filed by the
petitioners herein and few others, in which they have also
challenged all the sale deeds executed in respect of the suit property
from the year 1966. The petitioners have simply stated that they
came to know their rights to get share in the property in July 2013.
The transactions in respect of the land of respondent No. 6 are
shown at Sr. Nos. 35, 37 and 38. An injunction was sought that till the
decision of the suit, no order of converting the land for non
agricultural purposes or construction over it be permitted as the same
will cause prejudice to the plaintiffs/petitioners herein and it will be
difficult for them to get their share in the property. The said temporary
injunction application was rejected by the learned Trial Court finding
that there is no prima facie case, there is a long silence and inaction
on the part of the plaintiffs/petitioners and the plaintiffs/petitioners are
no way concerned with the property bearing Gat No. 15. Further, it
was observed that the defendants to the suit have given an
undertaking that if the suit is decreed, they shall handover the
possession of the property or pay compensation amount equivalent
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-33-
to the share of the plaintiffs/petitioners and therefore, they are
protected. This order was unsuccessfully challenged by the
plaintiffs/petitioners and others before this Honourable Court in
Appeal from Order No. 84 of 2015. This Honourable Court observed
that prima-facie, the findings recorded by the trial court appear to be
sound and that this respondent had given an undertaking which is
the strongest reason for dismissal of the application, apart from the
plaintiffs/petitioners and others having no balance of convenience in
their favour.
28. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that by
Notification dated 22.12.2014, the Government of Maharashtra has
amended Section 42 of the M.L.R. Code by inserting Section 42-A.
The sum and substance of the said amendment is that there is no
need for obtaining any permission for change of use of land covered
by the development plan if the land is held as an occupant-Class I.
There cannot be any dispute that the land in question is held as an
occupant-Class I by respondent No. 6, as is apparent from the 7/12
extracts filed on record.
29. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the
petitioners are challenging the maintainability of revision mainly on
two counts. The first objection raised by the petitioners is that, the
revision was filed by Respondent No. 6-company, although the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-34-
application for conversion was filed by the promoters-Mrs. and Mr.
Birole. In this connection, it will be worthwhile to state that it is not at
all disputed that Mrs. and Mr. Birole are the promoters of respondent
No. 6 company, namely, U-Tech Sugar Limited. It is the settled law
that the benefit of agreements entered into by the promoters can very
well be passed on to the company. Even Sub-section (1) of Section
44 of MLR Code, 1966 permits an occupant of alienated land or
superior holder of alienated land or a tenant of such land to apply for
NA use of land.
30. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the second
objection is raised that second appeal was maintainable in the
present matter and bypassing the said statutory remedy, revision is
filed without any application for condonation of delay. In this
connection, it is necessary to point out that the order under section
44 of the MLR Code has to be passed by the Collector. Even if the
order in the present matter is passed by the S.D.O. as a delegate of
the Collector, it cannot be said that the said officer was not the
Revenue Officer as contemplated under item III of Schedule -E of
Section 247 of the M.L.R. Code, and therefore, the appeal against
any such order was to be filed before the Divisional Commissioner
and further appeal is not provided against the order of Commissioner
and only revision is the appropriate remedy under Section 257 of the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-35-
M.L.R. Code and the same is availed by respondent no.6. The
application for conversion of the land to non agriculture use was
moved before the S.D.O. on 07.02.2013. An inquiry was conducted
by the Assistant Director of Town Planning and conditional
recommendations were issued and said conditions were fulfilled by
respondent No. 6 and consequently it was the case of deemed grant,
as contemplated under section 44(3) of the MLR Code, upon expiry
of the period of 90 days, for want of communication of any decision
of rejection. It is the matter of record that in the absolute suspicious
manner, respondent No.3 is coming up with the case of passing the
order of rejection of application of respondent No.6 which is
apparently ante-dated, so as to deprive respondent No.6 from the
benefits of deemed permission. Respondent No. 6 therefore
challenged the said ante-dated order by filing writ petition before this
Court bearing writ petition No. 7827 of 2013.
31. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that on
26.09.2013, this Court directed respondent No.6 to file an appeal, as
the remedy of appeal is provided and directed the appellate authority
to decide the appeal within two months and consider the public
interest involved in the matter. Therefore, there is no dispute that the
appeal against the order passed by S.D.O. was filed under section
247 of the MLR Code before the Divisional Commissioner.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-36-
32. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that as the
appeal was not decided, a contempt petition bearing No. 90 of 2014
was filed before this Court. During the pendency of the said contempt
petition, the appellate authority by its order dated 27.01.2014, partly
allowed the said appeal. The said contempt petition was disposed of
on 24.02.2014. In terms of order passed by the appellate authority,
the matter was remanded for reconsideration on 4 points which,
needless to state, were beyond the scope of inquiry under Section 44
of the MLR Code. Respondent No. 6 as well as its promoter
therefore challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No. 2659 of
2014 before this Honourable Court. This respondent was meanwhile
informed that there is a remedy of revision which should be availed
by it. Accordingly, a revision came to be filed before the State
Government. This Court, by order dated 15.4.2015 disposed of writ
petition No. 2659 of 2014 as withdrawn.
33. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that in the above
sequence of events and considering the fact that under section 248
of the M.L.R. Code, appeal lies to the State Government in respect of
the original order passed by the Commissioner etc., there was no
other remedy available to the respondent except to file revision
before the State Government to invoke the powers under Section
257 of the Code. There is no prescribed period of limitation to file
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-37-
revision under Section 257. The said revision was admittedly filed on
13/17.03.2015 i.e. hardly after a year of passing of the order by the
appellate authority and for the said intervening time, the writ petition
was pending and therefore there was no impediment in entertaining
the said revision.
34. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the
petitioners are coming up with the case that the order was passed by
the revisional authority (respondent no.5- Hon'ble Minister) in haste
and without giving proper opportunity of hearing. The said claim is
absolutely incorrect and improper inasmuch as it is a matter of record
that not only the oral arguments were advanced before the revisional
authority on 16.04.2015 but written notes of arguments were also
filed by the petitioners on 23.04.2015. It can also be gathered from
the impugned order that each and every argument of petitioners is
reordered and considered. The certified copies applied by petitioners
are immediately received by them in a single day.
35. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that, as it
appears from the order passed in the revision, respondent No.6 was
directed to deposit 50% amount of market value of the land as
Najrana being old condition, i.e. an amount of Rs. 23,94,943/- for
getting the required permission of non agriculture use, which the
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-38-
respondent No. 6 has deposited on 02.09.2015 and NA Permission is
issued as per order of Government.
36. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that in so far as
the scope of interference is concerned, it is settled law that exercise
of writ jurisdiction is discretionary in nature and this Court while
exercising the said power cannot convert itself as court of appeal.
The said power cannot be exercised unless and until it is shown that
jurisdiction exercised by the authorities below is beyond its authority
or demonstrates patent perversity, leading to manifest injustice. As it
is apparent from the aforesaid facts, the present petition is filed by
the party who intends to pressurize respondent No.6 for some
obvious malafide purposes. The attempt made earlier by the said
parties (petitioners) to get such a relief is not only negated by the
competent Civil Court but also by this Court. Therefore, in the light of
the settled position of law, the present petition is not at all
maintainable.
37. Learned counsel for respondent no.6, in order to substantiate
his contentions, placed reliance on the following cases :
1. Vithal Kondhalkar vs. State of Maharashtra & others,
reported in 1981 Bom.C.R. 32.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-39-
2. Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) By LRs. and
others vs. Vithu Hira Mahar (Dead) By LRs. and
others, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 273.
3. Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil and Others vs.
Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and Others, reported in
(2009) 9 SCC 352.
4. Madhavdas Damodardas Gujar and others vs.
Mahadu Keru Raut, reported in 1994 (1) Bom.C.R. 509.
5. Jai Narain Parasrampuria (Dead) and others vs.
Pushpa Devi Saraf and Ors., reported in (2006) 7 SCC
756.
6. UTV Motion Pictures and others vs. Murphy
Enterprises, reported in 2016 (2) Bom.C.R. 628.
7. Purushottam Ramlal Shukla vs Gayatridevi
Narayanprasad Pande & Ors., reported in 2015 (1)
Bom.C.R. 719.
8. Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms) and others vs. Ulhas
Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others, reported in
(2010) 1 SCC 217.
9. Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs. Rajendra
Shankar Patil, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329.
10. Vinaykumar Kachrulal Abad vs. Honourable Minister,
Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai and others, reported in 2002 (1) Mh.L.J. 854.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-40-
11. Ganesh Ginning and Pressing Company Ltd., Jalna
vs. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2005
(4) Mh.L.J. 263.
12. N. K. Harchandani vs. State of Maharashtra and
another, reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 817.
13. Ravi Rao Gaikwad and others vs. Rajajinagar Youth
Social Welfare Assn. and others, reported in (2006) 5
SCC 62.
14. Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others, reported in
(2005) 6 SCC 733.
15. M/s. Gammon India Ltd. and others vs. Union of
India and others, reported in (1974) 1 SCC 596.
16. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465.
17. Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab State
Electricity Board and others, reported in (2010) 13
SCC 216.
18. Aligarh Muslim University and others vs. Mansoor
Ali Khan, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529.
38. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the respective parties. With their able assistance,
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-41-
I have perused the memo of petition, grounds taken therein,
annexures thereto and also the affidavit-in-reply.
39. Admittedly, the land gat no. 15 is situated at Kauthe Malkapur,
Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar and the land ad-measuring
30 Acres (11.48 Hec.) bearing gat nos. 15/9, 15/10 and 15/17 is the
subject matter of the N.A. permission. It is also not disputed that the
land gat no. 15 was a Watan land and by application of Section 4 of
the Act of 1958, all the inferior village watans were abolished from
the appointed date and the lands were resumed by the State
Government. In terms of the provisions of Section 5 of the Act of
1958, in the year 1969, by the order of Tahsildar the lands mentioned
in the order including land gat no. 15, which were earlier Mahar
Jangle Inam Class VI lands held by the original Watandar Yesu
Arjuna Bagul, Thaka Dhana Bagul and 10 others, came to be re-
granted to Yesu Arjuna Bagul, Thaka Dhana Bagul and 10 other
persons on old conditions/new imparted conditions and also on
payment of an amount of Najrana as stated in Section 5 of the Act of
1958. On the basis of the said re-grant order of the year 1969, the
mutation entry nos. 928 and 929 came to be certified on 11.02.1970
as per the orders of the Tahsildar Sangamner.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-42-
40. It is the contention of the petitioners that even though there
was no re-grant orders, some of the watandars had illegally sold the
portion of land gat no. 15 (survey no. 7 to 15) and an attempt was
made to get the mutation entry nos. 850 to 851, respectively, certified
from the Revenue authorities. However, the said mutation entries
came to be rejected by the Tahsildar. Vishnu Laxman Sagar, Ganpat
Laxman Sagar and Vitthal Laxman Sagar had purchased some
portion of the land survey nos. 8 and 10 under registered sale deed
sr. no.1766/1966, some portion of survey no. 11 under registered
sale deed sr. no. 1911/1966 and some portion of survey no.9 under
registered sale deed sr. no. 1767 /1966. However, the mutation
entries 1049, 1050 and 1051 attempted to be taken on the basis of
the said sale deeds of the year 1966 came to be refused. It is the
case of the petitioners that despite the said fact, the purchaser Vitthal
Laxman Sagar in collusion with the Revenue authorities, succeeded
in getting certified the mutation entry nos. 456, 457 and 458 in
respect of the sale deeds of the year 1966. Accordingly, their names
came to be entered in the Revenue record. It is the case of
respondent nos. 6 that the State Government by general order dated
12.11.1955 prescribed payment of 10 times for transfer of the
assessment, 3 times for occupancy rights and if 13 times is paid, it is
obligatory for the Collector to release the land as the original owner
paid the occupancy price. Thus, the issuance of the order was
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-43-
nothing but a mere formality. The land was re-granted on payment of
Najrana on 10+3 times on 01.04.1965 and 20.07.1965 and
accordingly, the mutation entry nos. 928 and 929 of the re-grant order
came to be recorded.
41. It is the part of record that as per the order passed by the
Tahsildar, Sangamner in the month of November 1969, the original
Watandars Yesu Arjuna Mahar, Thaka Dhana Bagul and 10 others
have paid Najrana of 10+3 times and paid the amount as directed in
the orders dated 01.04.1965 and 20.07.1965 in sub-treasury office.
Subsection(3) of Section 5 of the Act of 1958 has been re-numbered
as clause (a) by the Maha. Act XIX of 2008. In terms of the said
provisions of Sub-section (3) which was already in existence, the
occupancy of the land re-granted under Sub-section (1) was not to
be transferable or partiable by metes and bounds without previous
sanction of the Collector and except on payment of such amount as
the State Government may by general or special order determine. In
terms of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act of 1958, it is the
powers of the Collector to decide the questions (a) whether any land
is a watan land, (b) whether any person is a watandar and (c)
whether any person is an unauthorized holder.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-44-
42. Section 44 of the MLR Code, 1966 prescribes the procedure
for conversion of the use of land from one purpose to another. In
terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 44 of the MLR
Code, such occupant or superior holder or tenant, with the consent of
the tenant, or as the case may be, of the occupant or superior holder,
apply to the collector for permission in accordance with the form
prescribed. Section 44 (3) of the MLR Code postulates presentation
of an application for conversion of use and the Collector has to
decide the application within the prescribed period of 90 days. If he
fails to do so, deeming clause comes into operation whereby the
permission sought for is deemed to have been granted.
43. In view of the above legal position, it is necessary to reproduce
herein below the provisions of Sections 2(38) and 44 of the MLR
Code.
"Section 2. Definitions:
(1) to (37) ............
(38) "superior holder" except in Chapter XIV means a land-
holder entitled to receive rent or land revenue from other
land-holders (called "inferior holders") whether he is
accountable or not for such rent or land revenue, or any part
thereof, to the State Government :
Provided that, where land has been granted free of
rent or land revenue, subject to the right of resumption in
certain specified contingencies by a holder of alienated land
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-45-
whose name is authorisedly entered as such in the land
records, such holder shall, with reference to the grantee, be
deemed to be the superior holder of land so granted by him,
and the grantee shall, with reference to the grantor, be
deemed to be the inferior holder of such land, and for the
purposes of Sections 147, 151 and 152 of the Maharashtra
Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961, shall
notwithstanding anything hereinafter contained in the
definition of the word "tenant", be deemed to be the tenant of
such grantor;
(39) to (43) .........
(44) "wada land" means an open land in village site used for
tethering cattle or storing crops or fodder, manure or other
similar things."
44. It is also necessary to reproduce herein below the provisions of
Sections 2 (1) (vii) 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Act of 1958.
"2. Definitions:-
(1) (i) to (vi) .........
(vii) "inferior village watan" means the inferior village
hereditary office together with the tenure of watan property, if
any, and the rights, privileges and liabilities attached
thereto ;
3. Powers of the Collector to decide certain questions
and appeal- (1) If any question arises,
(a) whether any land is watan land,
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-46-
(b) whether any person is a watandar,
(c) whether any person is an unauthorised holder,
the Collector shall, after giving the party affected an
opportunity to be heard and after holding an inquiry, decide
the question.
(2) Any person aggrieved by such decision may file an
appeal to the State Government within ninety days of such
decision.
(3) The decision of the Collector, subject to an appeal under
sub-section (2) of the decision of the State Government in
appeal under subsection (2) shall be final.
4. Abolition of interior watans together with incident
thereof; - Notwithstanding anything in any usage, custom,
settlement, grant, agreement, sanad, or in any decree or
order of a Court or in the existing watan law, with effect on
and from the appointed date-
(1) all inferior village watans shall be and are hereby
abolished,
(2) all incidents (including the right to hold office and
watan property, the right to levy customary fees or
perquisites in money or in kind, and the liability to
render service) appertaining to the said watans shall be
and are hereby extinguished,
(3) subject to the provisions of sections 5. 6 and 9, all
watan land shall be and is hereby resumed and shall
be subject to the payment of land revenue under the
provisions of the Code and the rules made there under
as if it were an unalienated land:
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-47-
Provided that such resumption shall not affect the validity of
any alienation of such watan land made in accordance with
the provisions of the existing watan law or the rights of an
alienee thereof or any person claiming under or through him.
5. Re-grant of watan lands to holders of watan.- (1) A
watan land resumed under section 4 shall, in cases not
falling under sections 6 and 9 be re-granted to the watandar
of the watan to which it appertained on payment by or on
behalf of the watandar to the State Government of the
occupancy price equal to three times the amount of the full
assessment of such land within the prescribed period and in
the prescribed manner and the watandar shall be deemed to
be an occupant within the meaning of the Code in respect of
such land and shall primarily be liable to pay land revenue to
the State Government in accordance with the provisions of
the Code and the rules made there under; and all the
provisions of the Code and rules relating to unalienated land
shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, apply to the said
land :
Provided that in respect of the watan land which was not
assigned under the existing watan law as the remuneration
of the inferior village hereditary office, an occupancy price
equal to the amount of the full assessment of such land shall
be paid by or on behalf of the watandar for the re-grant of
such land.
(2) If there is failure to pay the occupancy price under sub-
section (1) within the prescribed period and in the prescribed
manner, the watandar shall be deemed to be unauthorisedly
occupying the land and shall be liable to be summarily
evicted therefrom by the Collector in accordance with the
provisions of the Code.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-48-
(3) [(a)] The occupancy of the land re-granted under sub-
section (1) shall not be transferable or partible by metes and
bounds without the previous sanction of the Collector and
except on payment of such amount as the State
Government may by general or special order determine.
(b) Before the commencement date, if any such occupancy
has already, without previous sanction or no objection
certificate from the Collector, or any other authority, been
transferred by the occupant, for agricultural purpose, such
transfer may be regularized on the production of registered
instruments such as sale deed, gift deed, etc. as a proof
thereof, for such transfer. After such regularization, the
occupancy of such land shall be held by such transferee
occupant on new and impartible tenure in accordance with
the provisions of the Code.
9: Eviction of unauthorized holder and re-grant of watan
land to him in certain circumstances and disposal of
land not re-granted. - (1) Where any watan land resumed
under section 4 is in the possession of an unauthorised
holder, such unauthorised holder shall be summarily evicted
therefrom by the Collector in accordance with the provisions
of the Code:
Provided that where in the case of any unauthorised holder,
the State Government is of opinion that in view of the
investment made by such holder in the development of the
land or in the non -agricultural use of the land or otherwise,
the eviction of such holder from the land will involve undue
hardship to him, it may direct the Collector to re-grant the
land to such holder on payment of such amount and subject
to such terms and conditions as the State Government may
determine and the Collector shall re-grant the land to such
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-49-
holder accordingly.
(2) Watan land which is not granted under sub-section (1)
shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the
Code and the rules made there under applicable to the
disposal of unoccupied unalienated land."
45. Thus, keeping in mind the above legal provisions, I have
carefully gone through the order dated 07.05.2013 passed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner. On receipt of the application filed
by Ravindra Birole and another on 07.02.2013 under Section 44(1) of
the MLR Code, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner requested the
Assistant Director, Town Planning and Valuation Department,
Ahmednagar to verify the technical aspect of the layout plan and
submit an opinion on the layout plan for grant of N.A. permission as
per the application filed by Ravindra Birole and another in respect of
the land bearing Gat nos. 15/10, 15/9 and 15/17 admeasuring 11
Hec. 48 R. situated at Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner, District
Ahmednagar. The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Ahmednagar,
by communication dated 14.03.2013, has pointed out various
deficiencies as detailed in the said letter, including the deficiency of
non-production of N.O.C. of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board
in respect of the proposal and also that the shares shown in the 7x12
extract and in the measurement map does not tally with each other.
Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner, by communication
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-50-
dated 15.04.2013, by referring the report submitted by the Tahsildar,
Sangamner dated 20.03.2013 and also by referring clause no.12 of
the letter dated 14.03.2013 received from the Assistant Director of
Town Planning, Ahmednagar, gave certain directions to the Tahsildar
Sangamner, including the direction to verify whether there is any
dispute regarding the title of the above property, N.O.C. of the
Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and also the non matching of
the share shown in the 7x12 extract and in the measurement map.
Further, the Sub-Divisional Officer has also directed Ravindra Birole
to remove the deficiencies as pointed by the Assistant Director, Town
Planning, Ahmednagar. By order dated 07.05.2013, the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sangamner has disposed of the application filed by
Ravindra Birole and Ashwini Purushottam Birole for the reasons of
non-compliance and non-removal of the objections as raised and
pointed out to them. However, on 07.08.2013, said Ravindra Birole
has submitted certain documents in the office of Sub-Divisional
Officer by giving reference to the communication before disposal of
his application seeking permission under Section 44(1) of the MLR
Code. By order dated 23.08.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Sangamner has informed Ravindra Birole and Ashwini Purushottam
Birole that their application dated 07.08.2013 has been referred to
the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Ahmednagar on 14.08.2013
and if the said office recommends the said proposal, then their
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-51-
proposal would be reconsidered, and accordingly disposed of their
application dated 07.08.2013. By any stretch of imagination, it cannot
be concluded that on 07.05.2013, the Sub-Divisional Officer has not
passed any order and the said order came to be passed along with
or after the order dated 23.08.2013. Even thereafter, on 05.09.2013,
the Town Planning Department declined to reconsider the earlier
positive recommendations dated 14.03.2013.
46. I have carefully gone through the order passed by the
Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. It
appears that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Sangamner dated 07.05.2013, the said Ravindra
Birole has filed Writ Petition No. 7827 of 2013 and by order dated
26.09.2013, said Ravindra Birole was granted liberty to file an appeal
before the Additional Divisional Commissioner with further directions
to the appellate authority to dispose of the said appeal within two
months considering the public interest. It further appears that the
learned Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik has considered
the rival submissions of both the parties and after hearing the
arguments of Ravindra Birole and the third party, formulated the
points viz: (i) It was necessary to take a decision after verifying the
N.A. proposal and considering the restrictions imposed on Inam
Class 6-B land, (ii) the objection as to whether the watandar can sale
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-52-
the watan land can be decided by filing separate appeal for revision
before the competent court. Third party has raised dispute about
ownership of the disputed land and Special Civil Suit No. 27 of 2013
is pending before the Civil Court, (3) the applicants have purchased
land and as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land
(Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, whether the applicants can purchase
the said land, is required to be ascertained and (4) Before grant of
N.A. use permission 50% Najrana as per market rate is not paid. The
applicant is ready to pay the same. However, applicant has started
N.A. use on the said land from 15.08.2013 and a letter to that effect
is issued by the applicant vide letter bearing No. U-tech/096/2013-14
dated 20.08.2013 to Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner. From this it
appears that, condition has been violated. The applicant should have
firstly paid 50% Najrana amount and thereafter should have started
N.A. use.
47. The learned Additional Divisional Commissioner has also
observed that the applicant is constructing a sugar factory on the
said land and making investment of a huge amount and therefore,
passing any order, the applicants should not be put to loss. The
learned Additional Divisional Commissioner thus thought it fit that the
aforesaid points are required to be reconsidered by the Sub-
Divisional Officer.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-53-
48. Thus, considering the entire aspect of the case, as discussed
above, I find no fault in the order passed by the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik remanding the matter to the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Sangamner to consider point Nos. 1 to 4 as formulated in the
said order dated 27.01.2014. It further appears that the Hon'ble
Minister has passed the impugned order hastily. Furthermore, the
conclusions drawn by the Hon'ble Minister in paragraph no. 30 of the
order are not proper, correct and legal. The Hon'ble Minister has,
without any discussion, formulated clauses (a) to (f) of para 30 as his
conclusions and further, in para 31 of the judgment and order,
observed that there is no necessity to remand the matter for fresh
inquiry. Even the Hon'ble Minister, without discussing the points
formulated by the Additional Commissioner, observed that the
company has complied with the conditions for grant of permission for
N.A. use.
49. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 has placed reliance in the
case of Vithal Kondhalkar vs. State of Maharashtra & others
(supra) wherein, the question as to whether it is obligatory to re-grant
the land upon payment of Nazrana has been dealt with by the
Division Bench of this Court. The petitioners in the aforesaid case
were formerly inferior Watandars before the said Watan was
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-54-
abolished by the Act of 1958. In para 6 of the judgment, the Division
Bench of this Court has observed that in administrating all the
abolition laws, the Collectors have to see whether the additional
payment as contemplated by the particular Act has been made by the
ex-Watandars or ex-Inamdars and the moment that was done, almost
as a matter of formality, the order of conversion must be passed. The
Division Bench has also observed that in spite of such payments
having been made, the orders have yet to come and in one case, for
ten years the Collector has not yet passed the requisite order under
Section 3(5) of the Act of 1958. The Division Bench in the aforesaid
case has also dealt with the provisions of Section 59(b) of the MLR
Code by referring the Collector's order with regard to the eviction of
the petitioners. In the instant case, the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik has remanded the matter on four points and
as per it, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner has been directed to
verify the N.A. proposal and further to consider the restrictions
imposed on Inam Class 6-B land. Thus, the ratio laid down in the
case relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent no.6 cannot
be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
50. In the case of Ramchandra Dagdu Sonavane (Dead) By
LRs. and others (supra), relied upon by learned counsel for
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-55-
respondent no.6, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the law
relating to Watan lands, the scheme of Bombay Hereditary Offices
Act, 1874, the scheme of Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition
Act, 1958, the scheme of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876
and in para 40 of the judgment, has observed that the scheme of the
Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 does not provide
for the review of the re-grant order, nor does it provide for a de novo
enquiry to decide whether any person is a watandar. In the instant
case the petitioners have come with a case that without there being
any re-grant orders, some of the watandars illegally sold portion of
the land gat no. 15 and that earlier mutation entries came to be taken
with regard to the same and those mutation entries came to be
cancelled subsequently. It is the case of the petitioners that
respondent no.6 had purchased the land from gat nos. 15/9, 15/10
and 15/17 under registered sale deed without permission of the
competent authority. It is the case of respondent no.6 that land gat
no. 15 was a piece of land under the category of re-granted land and
the Government, by order dated 12.11.1955, prescribed the payment
of 10 times for transfer and 3 times for occupancy rights. The
promoters of respondent no.6 had purchased the land gat no. 15
from one Ramchandra Sagar who had purchased it from Bagul in the
year 1966. In view of these rival submissions, the Additional
Divisional Commissioner had directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-56-
verify the N.A. proposal and also to consider the restrictions imposed
on Inam Class 6-B land.
51. Learned counsel for respondent no.6 has further placed
reliance on the cases of UTV Motion Pictures and others vs.
Murphy Enterprises (supra), Purushottam Ramlal Shukla vs
Gayatridevi Narayanprasad Pande & Ors. (supra), Celina Coelho
Pereira (Ms) and others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and
others (supra) and Shalini Shyam Shetty and another vs.
Rajendra Shankar Patil (supra) to submits that the scope of
interference in writ jurisdiction is limited. However, in the facts of the
present case, a clear case for interference under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been made out.
52. So far as the scope of inquiry under Section 44 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is concerned, learned counsel for
respondent no.6 submits that the objection regarding the ownership
etc. are not germane and an aggrieved person can pursue the
remedy independently. Learned counsel also submits that the
petitioners had no locus to participate in the proceedings and thus,
the question of grant of permission can be decided on the basis of
the material on record. The scope of the proceedings could not be
enlarged. To substantiate these contentions, learned counsel for
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-57-
respondent no.6 has placed reliance on the cases of Ganesh
Ginning and Pressing Company Ltd., Jalna vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (supra), N. K. Harchandani vs. State of
Maharashtra and another (supra), Ravi Rao Gaikwad and others
vs. Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Assn. and others (supra),
Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others (supra) and M/s. Gammon
India Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others (supra).
53. In the case of Ganesh Ginning and Pressing Company Ltd.,
Jalna vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra), the Division
Bench of this Court had an occasion to consider the deeming
provision for grant of permission for conversion of use of agricultural
land into nonagricultural land. The Division Bench of this Court, by
considering the provisions of Section 44 Sub-section (3) of the MLR
Code, in para 6 of the judgment, has observed that the provision is
required to be interpreted by giving effect to the purpose for which it
is enacted. It has also been observed that while conducting such an
inquiry, undoubtedly, the authority has to get itself satisfied about the
fact of ownership of the land of the applicant. However, that will not
entitle such authority to decide the issue of title or dispute regarding
title to the property between the parties. In the instant case, I do not
find that the Additional Divisional Commissioner has directed the
Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the issue of title or dispute regarding
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-58-
the title to the property between the parties. The Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik has remanded the matter in a different context
on the different points. At the most, it can be inferred from the order
passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner that the Sub-
Divisional Officer has been directed to satisfy himself about the
ownership of the land of respondent no.6.
54. In the case of N. K. Harchandani vs. State of Maharashtra
and another (supra), wherein this Court had an occasion to consider
the intervention by third party in the matter, it has been observed that
such intervention can be permitted only if the intervener's
participation is essential for deciding the lis before the Court. In the
instant case, we need not go into the said issue since in the earlier
round litigation, this Court had directed the parties to approach the
appellate court and it further appears that respondent no.6 has not
seriously disputed the locus of the petitioners in bringing up those
proceedings. So far as the cases of Ravi Rao Gaikwad and others
vs. Rajajinagar Youth Social Welfare Assn. and others (supra),
Kasturi vs. Iyyamperumal and others (supra) and M/s. Gammon
India Ltd. and others vs. Union of India and others (supra), the
ratio laid down therein cannot be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-59-
55. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. State of
Maharashtra (supra), the Supreme Court had dealt with an issue of
intervention and observed that a stranger cannot be permitted to
meddle any proceedings, unless he satisfies the authority/Court that
he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. The expression
"person aggrieved" does not include a person who suffers from a
psycho-logical or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must
therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been
adversely affected or jeopardized. The petitioners in the instant case
claim to be the heirs and legal representatives of the original
watandar Samba Mohanna Bagul and thus, they claim to be the
interested parties in land gat nos. 15/9, 15/10 and 15/17 which is the
subject matter of the litigation. Thus the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid case cannot be made applicable to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
56. In the case of Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur vs. Punjab
State Electricity Board and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed that the principles of natural justice cannot be
applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and
circumstances of the case and they cannot be put in a straitjacket
formula. In para 33 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has
observed that there may be cases where on admitted and undisputed
::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::
WP-8788-15pd
-60-
facts, only one conclusion is possible. In such an eventuality, the
application of the principles of natural justice would be a futile
exercise and an empty formality. In the instant case, however, there
are disputed facts and only one conclusion is not possible. It further
appears from the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister that the order
has been hastily passed without following the principles of natural
justice.
57. In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition deserves to
be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the
Hon'ble Minister. Let there be a full fledged inquiry as directed by the
Additional Commissioner in his remand order. It is open for
respondent no.6 to raise all points before the Sub-Divisional Officer
after remand. However, it is also important to note here that
respondent no.6 had developed the industry on the suit land and
possession of respondent no.6 over the suit land should not be
disturbed in any manner under the garb of the remand order passed
by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. Thus, with these
observations, I proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
I. The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.
II. The impugned order dated 13.05.2015 passed by respondent ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 ::: WP-8788-15pd -61- no.5-The Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai in Case No. RTS-3315/932/P.N./149/G-6 is hereby quashed and set aside with the following directions:
a. The Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the matter within a period of six months from the date of appearance of the parties with due regard to the directions given by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nashik in the remand order dated 27.01.2014 passed in appeal no. 49 of 2013.
b. The parties shall appear before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner on 11.07.2019.
c. The parties are at liberty to raise all the points available to them before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner.
d. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
e. In view of disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in the pending Civil Application Nos. 12472 of 2015 and 13019 of 2015 and the Contempt Petition No. 573 of 2015 and the same also stand disposed of.
( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/ ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 12:44:46 :::