ANANDA RAMBHAU Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties.

(2.) This petition is filed by the original accused persons challenging an order dtd. 14/12/2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner in Criminal Misc. Application No. 02/2018 thereby issuing process for the offences punishable under Ss. 3 (2) (iv) (v) (vii) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") and issuing summons for the offence punishable under Sec. 3 (1) (f) (g) (p) and (q) of the Atrocities Act. The prayer so far as Sec. 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is concerned, the same is rejected. The application is rejected so far as accused Nos. 19 to 26 are concerned. The case was directed to be re-registered as a special case.

(3.) The facts in short giving rise to the present petition are as below : The respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint with the allegation that, the land Gat No. 12/1 admeasuring 9.37 Hectares + 0.94 Hectares, total area having 10.31 Hectares was a land given to his ancestors as Mahar Vatandars. The said land was a granted land and therefore, no interest in the land could have been transferred in favour of any person except permission from the Collector. He further alleged that, he came to know that on the basis of Tenancy Case No. 1/66 the ancestors of the accused persons got themselves declared as tenants in the land and there was judgment given by the Tahsildar to that effect. It is alleged that, on making enquiry the said order and the proceeding filed in the year 1966 itself is not found in the record. The complainant therefore alleged that by showing that judgment the accused persons got entries done in the revenue record. The said entries were challenged by the complainant. The complainant's appeal came to be allowed, against that the learned Divisional Commissioner, Nashik vide its judgment and order dtd. 31/10/2018 allowed the revision filed by the petitioners. Now, the said order is under challenge before the Hon'ble Minister and it has not attained finality. He further states that, in the proceeding started by the complainant the Tahsildar has clearly held that the judgment on the basis of which the names of the accused and their ancestors are taken on record itself is not found. Against that, appeal was preferred to the Collector. The Collector has also affirmed the finding that in the year 1966 there was no proceeding filed to declare the accused persons and their ancestors as tenants. Said order of the Collector is not challenged by the accused persons.