RAVINDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner in the proceedings under Section 45A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, 'the said Act'). By the said order, the revision petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order dated 01.01.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer upholding the claim as made by the respondent no.6 for being granted surplus land stands maintained.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that in proceedings under the said Act, land admeasuring 2 Acres 23 R from Field Survey No.156 of village Wadnergangai, Taluka Daryapur, District Amravati was sought to be allotted. In accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the said Act that land was to be allotted to the members of the Scheduled Caste category. The Tahsildar submitted his report in the said proceedings and by an order dated 16.11.1987 the aforesaid land was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly executed an undertaking as required under the Rules framed under the said Act. The petitioner was thereafter put in possession of that land on 29.04.1988. In view of certain complaints made with regard to the distribution of surplus land at village Wadnergangai, the Sub-Divisional Officer held an enquiry and by his order dated 31.01.1989 cancelled the allotment of the land made in favour of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was a resident of village Warud when infact preference was to be given to the villagers who were residing at village Wadnergangai. The petitioner alongwith others who were aggrieved by that order challenged the same by filing proceedings under Section 45A of the said Act before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner by his order dated 20.03.1992 dismissed the revision petition preferred by the petitioner and maintained the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. In view thereof, a fresh proclamation was issued on 07.05.1992 with a view to re-distribute the land. After taking possession of the land in question a fresh order of allotment dated 17.06.1992 came to be passed in favour of the respondent no.6. The possession was thereafter handed over to the respondent no.6 by executing a possession receipt. As the petitioner was aggrieved with the cancellation of allotment in his favour, he alongwith similarly situated allottees approached this Court through various writ petitions. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.1251 of 1992. A contention was raised that the distance between the two villages was less than eight kilometers and therefore the allotment in favour of the petitioner was legal and valid. By the common judgment dated 02.11.2004 this Court observed that the petitioner was a resident of Warud while the land in question was situated at Wadnergangai. It was noticed that though a finding had been recorded that the distance between Warud and Wadnergangai was more than eight kilometers, there was no definite material in that regard. On that count, the impugned orders were set aside and the proceedings were remanded to the Sub- Divisional Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry on those lines.