MAHADEO LAXMAN BHUYAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners claim themselves to be tribals and are opposing implementation of Slum Rehabilitation Scheme on the land occupied by them. They have questioned the Notification declaring the land as Slum Rehabilitation Area and are also aggrieved by orders directing their eviction from structures occupied by them. Petitioners are thus aggrieved by the action treating them as slum dwellers and desire themselves to be treated as allottees/owners of land occupied by them. Their opposition for implementation of slum scheme is thus premised on their claim as allotees of land as tribals. If treated as other slum dwellers most of the Petitioners are eligible to receive benefits of rehabilitation. But they are opposing their comparison with other slum dwellers contending that they are not mere encroachers, but are allottees of plots of land as tribals.

(2.) The challenge raised in the group of these Petitions can be broadly classified into three categories as under :

(3.) Petitioners claim to be tribals, who are occupants of structures on plot of land bearing Survey No.502/A (part) situated at Village Panch Pakhadi, Taluka and District Thane, which admeasures 3.39.0 Hectare. The said land at Survey No.502/A was initially recorded in revenue records as Gairan (Gurcharan) land. According to Petitioners in Writ Petition (Stamp) No.615 of 2025, the State Government had allotted portion of lands individually in their favour by passing various orders in the year 1949. That the said land was divided into plots of various sizes and names of 22 Tribal persons were recorded in respect of said plots of land. It is contended that the allotment of plots was for construction of houses and that therefore orders were passed by the Collector on 27/3/1950 and 30/3/1950 granting permission for non- agricultural use of the said plots of land. Reliance is placed by the said Petitioners on Village Specimen No.2 Extracts issued by Talathi Village Panch Pakhadi in which allotment of the plots in favour of Petitioners/their ancestors has been evidenced. It is their case that despite availability of such direct evidence of allotment of plots, names of the concerned Petitioners were deliberately not recorded in the revenue records by taking disadvantage of their social, educational and financial background. That various representations were made by them from time to time for recording of their names in pursuance of order passed by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in 1949 and by Collector in the year 1950. That the concerned Petitioners approached Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission on 13/11/2007 complaining about non-mutation of their names in the revenue records. The Human Rights Commission issued notices to the Collector and during the course of hearing before the Commission, a report was submitted by Collector on 1/3/2008 thereby giving assurance to the Petitioners that their names would be mutated in revenue records. Noting the said assurance and the report, State Human Rights Commission closed the case on 3/3/2008. It is Petitioners' case that towards implementation of the report submitted before the Commission, the Collector called for report from Tahsildar and Circle Officer, who submitted their reports, but no action was taken for mutating the names of concerned Petitioners to the revenue records in respect of the lands allotted in their names.