LAWS(BOM)-2006-9-218

DEORAO ROMA SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On September 22, 2006
DEORAO ROMA SHINDE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present letters Patent Appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 21st February, 2005, in writ Petition No. 800/1993, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, who maintained the order made by the additional Commissioner, on 20th February, 1993 in the revisional jurisdiction conferred upon him by the provisions of section 45-A of the Maharashtra agricultural Lands, Ceiling on holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "ceiling Act" for the sake of brevity). The learned Single Judge further directed the respondents to prepare and publish an appropriate programme for re-distribution of the entire land including the lands in possession of the petitioners. He further directed that since the possession of the petitioners was protected by interim order dt. 18-6-1993 while admitting the writ petition, the same would continue with the petitioners, unless otherwise, the petitioners are found to be not eligible for allotment as landless persons for want of availability of land. The learned Single Judge further directed that if it is found, after undertaking exercise of re-distribution by the Tahsildar, that the petitioners were not eligible or that the land is not available, the petitioners shall vacate the land and hand-over possession thereof to the tahsildar and such possession shall be handed over within two weeks after allotment is over.

(2.) A short factual background giving rise to the present lis is given below. By order dated 15-6-1992, the S. L. D. T. , manora, declared 66 acres and 33 gunthas agricultural lands at Mouza Amgavan and Kondoli belonging to the land holder Puranmal Bajrang Rathi as surplus. The said agricultural land thus became available for distribution. Section 27 of the ceiling Act provides for mode, priority and the manner of distribution of such Hands available for distribution. The said provision is quoted below :-

(3.) Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the appellants urged that