Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. The impugned order further shows that, the Vigilance Cell collected the school records of the persons, which the Petitioner claims to have been related with them. The entries in the said school record were of 'Mannervarlu' and dated 11/06/1990, 16/06/1986 and 18/06/1985. From the dates of the said entries, it is clear that, those are of post- constitution era. One of the document collected by the Vigilance Cell is 11 WP-11937-2024.odt the Revenue record (Pahani Pathrak in Modi Script) and it has been translated in Marathi language. The said entry is of 1346 Fasli, i.e. of the year - 1936, in the name of Sayanna Sayanna Gonewad Mannervarlu. The Petitioner claims that, the said Sayanna was her great grandfather. The said entry or document is reproduced below :

14. The impugned order further shows that, the said Rameshwar Gajanan Chandewar challenged his invalidation before this Court in Writ Petition No.9755/2024, decided by order dated 10/09/2024 and this Court, made the following observations in Paragraph No.17 of that Judgment :
"17. So far as 1347 Fasli revenue record is concerned, we need not repeat the observations of the committee which have already been mentioned earlier. The fact that though it was a record coming from the record of Tehsil office, Biloli, District - Nanded, no exception can be taken to the inference drawn by the committee based on what could be noticed even by the translator. The column on the left side of page contained entries in Modi script whereas only the columns on the right side page in the remarks column, appeared in Urdu. The seal impressed apparently having Urdu script, was also smudged one and the ink appeared fresh. Surprisingly, even the columns were drawn in pencil and the line appeared even on the already impressed stamp. Meaning thereby that it was not a ruled page having the seal but it was a page having the seal whereupon the lines were drawn. If such was the condition of the record, no exception can be taken to the inference drawn by the committee that it was a dubious record and refusing to accept it as a proof to substantiate petitioner's claim."