Ramdas Bhaguji Raibole vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

The present petition challenges order dated 26.7.2016 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Daryapur, whereby the application of the present respondent No.5 is allowed and the land granted to the present petitioner, which according to the said authority is already forfeited stood vested in the Government. The said order has been confirmed by the Commissioner vide judgment order 15th July 2022. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

I have heard Mr. C.A. Babrekar, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. C.A. Lokhande, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. J.B. Kalbande, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

Before proceeding further it would be relevant to reproduce the order of this Court in the present petition, passed on 20th October 2022.

It is thus clear that what felt from this Court was that there was no mention of any revenue proceedings or the date on which the order of forfeiture has been passed.

As can be seen from the facts in the petition that the petitioner was allotted land on 29.11.1976 admeasuring 2.40 hectare. The premium for the land was also paid in pursuance to notice dated 19th August, 1988 and also thereafter. As per the averments in the petition the last payment seems to be done on 15.5.1990.

The said land was allotted and it being a surplus land under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 196. In the backdrop of these facts, the respondent No.4 herein filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer against the order of the Tahsildar. The respondent No.4 filed mutation entry before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said Sub-Divisional Officer on 26.7.2016 passed the impugned order.

Mr. Babrekar, submits and points me out Namuna-F which is annexed at Page 23 and more particularly entry in clause 9 thereof. What is conspicuous by its absence in the said entry is the details of the case number as also the date on which the alleged forfeiture of the land allotted to the petitioner was consists. He, therefore, submits that the entire exercise of forfeiture is without any particular or details as are required in the law. It is his submission that such a forfeiture obviously could not have been done and, therefore, the entry in that regard is uncalled for which sans requisite details.

As far as the impugned order is concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding has been recorded regarding forfeiture being done because the petitioner took advantage of the provision and he got himself allotted a land at some other place at mouza Bhamod. Furthermore, criticizing the judgment of the Divisional Commissioner, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though it record a finding that there is no mention of any date number or the revenue case number in the revenue entry, still it rejects the revision filed by the present petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. Kalbalde, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 took me through the preliminary submission filed by him. He submits that the report of the Mandal Adhikari is conspicuous enough to show that the land in question has been forfeited since the petitioner took disadvantage of the Act mentioned supra. I have gone through the impugned order. The facts are clear enough to show that the entry regarding forfeiture is without any requisite details. The forfeiture even if is done cannot be without any prior notice or without any revenue proceeding being registered.

Having gone through the impugned order I am of the considered opinion that both the orders cannot be sustained. The said orders are, therefore, quashed and set aside. I, therefore, passed the following order :