AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of Parties.
It is the case of the Petitioner that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and she has encroached upon gairan land situated at mauje Nandgaon, Taluka- Aundha Nagnath, District- Hingoli in the year 1988. Since then she is cultivating the said land. Pursuant to her application seeking regularization of encroachment made in the year 2011, panchnama was conducted, copy of the same is placed on record at page no. 23. Thereafter, from time to time Revenue Officers have submitted reports in respect of encroachment of the Petitioner. However, till date no order of regularization is passed.
On 03.01.2013 District Collector has addressed a communication to Tahsildar to take decision on the application of the Petitioner for regularization of her encroachment of gairan land in the light of Government Resolutions, orders and if the matter is subjudice then decision of the Court. By communication dated 15.01.2013 Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) has addressed a letter to the District Collector reiterating the same.
Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner and learned AGP for the State. Perused the record.
Petitioner's case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5099 of 2024. Relevant observations are as follows:
4.We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the records available before us in this Writ Petition. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ors. reported in (2011) 11 SC 396, has taken note of certain encroachments on Government land and has opined that there cannot be any justification for regularising such illegal occupation. However, while directing the State Government and other authorities to prepare a scheme for eviction of illegal/ unauthorised occupants of the Government land, and the land earmarked for common villagers, has also provided that, regularisation should only be permitted in exceptional cases or where lease has been granted under Government Notification to landless labourers or members of the Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.
5.Considering the grant of land to the members of Scheduled Castes for giving effect to the mandate as contained in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagpal Singh (supra), the State Government has issued Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011, wherein directions have been issued to give effect to the mandate in the case of Jagpal Singh (supra). Having regard to the provisions contained in Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011 and the provisions contained in Section 22-A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which was inserted w.e.f. 26/4/2017, no illegal encroachment is permissible to be regularised on gairan land.
6.However, having observed as above, what we notice in this case is that, prior to issuance of the Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011, an application was made on behalf of the petitioner on 3/6/2006, seeking regularisation, whereupon the Divisional Commissioner, by letter dated 9/6/2006 directed the Collector to consider the application of the petitioner. It further appears to us that, in pursuance of the said communication issued by the Divisional Commissioner, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation has till date not been considered finally. The panchanama enclosed with the Writ Petition at Exhibit A discloses that the revenue authorities themselves have found the petitioner in occupation of the subject land.
In the light of above observations, we dispose of the writ petition by directing the Collector, Hingoli to consider claim of the Petitioner for regularization of her occupation over the subject land by passing reasoned and speaking order strictly in accordance with the law.
For taking an appropriate decision, the Collector will call upon the requisite documents and record from his subordinates and shall also provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
The entire exercise shall be completed by the Collector within three months from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before him.
Rule is made absolute in above terms.