AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Admit. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
By this application, the applicant seeks review of the order dated 09.02.2026, whereby the writ petition bearing number 1768/2024 was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to Collector, Washim for deciding it afresh.
It is necessary to state here, the facts which led to filing of the writ petition. The Collector, by order dated 05.05.1995, granted land of Plot No.78/2 to respondent no.4. The Collector in the said order had mentioned Plot No.211 as the new number of Plot No.78 which is against the record; whereas, Plot No.211 is distinct from Plot No.78. The petitioner is claiming to be in possession of the said plot since a long time and is also claiming ownership by adverse possession. The petitioner applied for correction/ review of the said order before respondent no.1 which came to be rejected. Therefore, by the said writ petition, it was prayed that the said mistake be corrected.
This Court, by order dated 09.02.2026, set aside the order of respondent no.1 and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry on the issue of land bearing Plot No.211.
By the present application, the applicant has contended that in wake of the said order, the Collector has started a different enquiry in respect of Plot No.211 regarding adverse possession which was never prayed by the petitioner in the writ petition. Therefore, he sought clarification / correction in the order dated 09.02.2026 with clear directions to respondent no.1 to make an enquiry for correction of the order dated 05.05.1995 only with respect to the plot number. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 and learned counsel for respondent no.4 also conceded and agreed to the same.
Perusal of the order also reveals that respondent no.1 was directed to decide the issue of land bearing Plot No.211 afresh. The said directions were issued just to verify whether that land of Plot No.211 is the new number given to Plot No.78. If the Collector finds that Plot No.211 is a distinct plot, then he shall correct the order dated 05.05.1995 to that effect only. The Collector was never directed to enquire into the issue of adverse possession in respect of Plot No.211, regarding which lis is pending before the competent Court.
Considering the common submissions of the parties, the order dated 09.02.2026 is required to be clarified by adding some words to the said order by replacing paras 2,4 and 5 as under:
"2.The contention of the petitioner is that the Collector, instead of enquiring into the issue of adverse possession over land bearing Plot No.211, has conducted enquiry only in respect of land bearing Plot No.78/2 and wrongly mentioned it as land bearing Plot no.211 as a corrected number of land bearing Plot No.78/2. In fact, land bearing Plot No.78/2 was allotted to respondent no.4 and not land bearing Plot No.211. Whereas, there was no dispute in respect of land bearing Plot No.211 as the same is an independent plot wherein, the petitioner is claiming to be in possession since the last 60 years.
4.In view of this, it is expedient to remand the matter back to the Collector for deciding it afresh to conduct enquiry whether Plot No.211 is the corrected number of Plot No.78/2 after affording an opportunity of hearing to Dinesh Nagwani who was not a party to the proceedings pending before the Collector.
5.The impugned order dated 07.11.2023 passed by Collector, Washim is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to Collector, Washim for deciding whether Plot No.211 is wrongly shown as the corrected number of Plot No.78/2 in the order dated 05.05.1995, after hearing Dinesh Nagwani. If the Collectors finds that Plot No.211 is an independent plot, the same be corrected in the order dated 05.05.1995 accordingly."
With this, the application stands disposed of.