Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2) In respect of house property bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.35 (revised No.622/2) the Petitioner has lost throughout the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR), Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR) and Hon'ble Minister and the orders passed in those proceedings are subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.200 of 2024.

3) So far as land bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No. 622/1) is concerned, the Petitioner initially succeeded before the DSLR, who passed order dated 31 July 2013 directing the Deputy Superintendent Land Records, Shirur to assign city survey number to the said land and to record name of holder accordingly. The Deputy Superintendent accordingly 19 March 2025 Megha 15_WP_13952_23 &200_2024_fc.docx passed order dated 27 September 2013 assigning city survey number to the said land admeasuring 4900 sq.mtrs. and mutating name of Petitioner therefor. Grampanchayat challenged order dated 27 September 2013 passed by the Deputy Superintendent before the DSLR, who rejected the appeal of the Grampanchayat by order dated 23 December 2019. The Grampanchayat filed second appeal before the DDLR and partly succeeded before him in setting aside order dated 23 December 2019 and the DDLR remanded the proceedings to DSLR for decision of the appeal on merits. Petitioner got aggrieved by order passed by the DDLR on 29 October 2021 and filed revision before the Hon'ble Minister. The Hon'ble Minister, while dismissing Petitioner's revision, has set aside the order of the DDLR dated 29 October 2021 as well as orders of DSLR dated 31 July 2013 and 23 December 2019. Hon'ble Minister has directed deletion of name of Petitioner from revenue records relating to the said land bearing Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No.622/1) and has further directed Tehsildar to remove Petitioner from said land under the provisions of Section 59 of the Code. Said order passed by the Minister on 17 October 2023 relating to Grampanchayat Old Milkat No.34A (revised No.622/1) is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.13952 of 2023.

9) Grampanchayat of Ranjangaon Ganpati got aggrieved by the said order dated 27 September 2013 passed by the Deputy Superintendent and filed appeal before the DSLR, which came to be rejected by order dated 23 December 2019 holding that direction for conduction of enquiry for assignment of city survey number was given by DSLR himself by order dated 31 July 2013 and it was beyond his jurisdiction to sit in appeal over his own order. Grampanchayat, Ranjangaon Ganpati preferred Second Appeal No.5122 of 2020 before the DDLR, Pune, who allowed the said appeal observing that DSLR ought to have decided the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the appeal was remanded to DSLR for being decided on merits. Petitioner got aggrieved by the remand order dated 29 October 2021 and filed Revision Application No.2543 of 2021 before the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue). The Hon'ble Minister has not only dismissed the revision filed by the Petitioner, but has also granted relief in favour of the Grampanchayat by setting aside remand order of DDLR dated 29 October 2021 and by setting aside orders passed by the DSLR dated 31 July 2013 and 23 December 2019, 19 March 2025 Megha 15_WP_13952_23 &200_2024_fc.docx Mutation Entry No.357 recording name of the Petitioner to land bearing Grampanchayat House No.34A is also set aside and name of the State Government is directed to be mutated to the revenue records. The Hon'ble Minister has further directed eviction of the Petitioner from the said land under the provisions of Section 59 of the Code. Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.13952 of 2023 challenging the Minister's order dated 17 October 2023. 

C.      Submissions


10)      The learned counsel appearing for the rival parties have

canvassed extensive submissions, gist of which is captured in the paragraphs to follow.

C.1. Submission on behalf of Petitioner in Writ Petition

11) Mr. Godbole, the learned senior advocate would appear on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.13952 of 2023. He would submit that Hon'ble Minister has grossly erred in granting relief in favour of Respondent-Grampanchayat in revision filed by the Petitioner. That the DDLR had merely remanded the appeal for fresh decision by DSLR and such remand order was under challenge in the revision. If the Hon'ble Minister was not with the Petitioner, he ought to have at the highest, dismissed the revision, which would have resulted in 19 March 2025 Megha 15_WP_13952_23 &200_2024_fc.docx DSLR deciding the appeal on merits. That the DDLR had not decided the appeal preferred by Respondent -Grampanchayat on merits. He had merely made a remand order directing DSLR to decide Grampanchayt's appeal on merits. Therefore, if the Hon'ble Minister was not inclined to grant any relief in favour of the Petitioner in the revision, he ought to have simply dismissed the same. There was no warrant for the Hon'ble Minister to proceed ahead and set aside the orders passed by the DDLR and DSLR. That while deciding the correctness of order of remand passed by the DDLR, the Hon'ble Minister has offered to the Respondent-Grampanchayat on a platter, the entire land by setting at naught the order dated 31 July 2013 passed by the DSLR.

C.2 Submissions on behalf of Petitioner in Writ Petition

14) Mr. Dani, the learned senior advocate would appear on behalf of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.200 of 2024. He would submit that the DSLR has erroneously refused to entertain the appeal preferred by the Petitioner by erroneously holding that appeal qua Grampanchayat Property No.34A was already allowed on 31 July 2013. That the DSLR failed to appreciate the fact that Grampanchayat property Nos.34A and 35 are independent properties, which are assigned new house property 19 March 2025 Megha 15_WP_13952_23 &200_2024_fc.docx Nos.622/1 and 622/2 respectively. That the DSLR has erroneously assumed as if both the properties are same. He would invite my attention to the relevant map for the purpose of demonstrating that the two properties are independent. He would submit that since Appeal qua House Property No.34A was partly allowed by the DSLR even the appeal qua House Property No.35 ought to have been allowed by the DSLR. That the DDLR and Hon'ble Minister have failed to appreciate this position and have erroneously confirmed the order of the DSLR. He would submit that Petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing by DDLR. That the Hon'ble Minister had directed conduct of enquiry by conducting site inspection and would rely upon map of the said site inspection showing existence of house property No.35(new No.622/2). He would also rely upon revenue entries relating to land bearing survey No.1/1 to demonstrate that the forefathers of Petitioner always had a right in respect of the land which later formed part of the House No.35(New No.622/2). He would accordingly pray for setting aside the orders passed by the DSLR, DDLR and Hon'ble Minister and for assignment of survey number to land bearing Grampanchayat House No. 35.