BALASAHEB SAHEBRAO BODKHE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Both these petitions raise identical controversy as well as relate to similar facts and circumstances. Therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the matter in issue are as under : - The Government of Maharashtra on 26 -06 -2012 published a draft notification under section 4 sub -section (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 inviting objections and suggestions in regard to area of particular tahsil to constitute sub -division and its revenue headquarter. Accordingly, in the draft notification, it was proposed that area of tahsil Gavrai and Shirur Kasar District Beed will constitute sub - division, namely, Gevrai having its headquarter at Gevrai, District Beed. Similarly, it was proposed that area of Ashti and Patoda Tahsils of the District Beed will constitute sub -division as Ashti with its headquarter at Ashti, District Beed only. There were objections raised in regard to inclusion of area of taluqa Shirur Kasar, District Beed in sub -division Gevrai. However, the Government of Maharashtra vide impugned notification dated 26 -07 -2013 shown area of Shirur Kasar tahsil as a part of sub -division known as "Patoda" with headquarter at Patoda, District Beed. The area of Ashti Taluka also shown include in sub -division "Patoda" having headquarter at Patoda. Being dissatisfied with the impugned notification, petitioners rushed to this Court and prayed to set aside and quash impugned notification to the extent of inclusion of area of Shirur Kasar Tahsil, District Beed in sub -division known as "Patoda" having its headquarter at Patoda as well inclusion of area of Ashti Tahsil in sub -division Patoda, District Beed instead of constituting its separate sub -division, namely, "Ashti" with headquarter at Ashti, District Beed. . It has been asserted that in view of geographical situation, population of respective tahsil areas and availability of conveyance facility, area of Shirur Kasar tahsil is required to be included in sub - division "Beed". Moreover, there must be a separate sub -division for "Ashti" tahsil area with its headquarter at "Ashti" only. The petitioners blamed that the impugned notification is politically motivated, arbitrary, unfair, irrational and not as per the provisions of law. Hence, petitioners requested to upset and quash the impugned notification by exercising jurisdiction amenable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for respective parties. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel for petitioner vehemently submitted that impugned notification dated 26 -07 -2013 is arbitrary, irrational and politically motivated. He explained that in a draft notification, area of tahsil Shirur Kasar is shown as part of sub -division Gevrai with its headquarter at Gevrai District Beed. But, in the final notification dated 26 -07 -2013 area of tahsil Shirur Kasar is shown included in Patoda sub -division, District Beed. The respondent failed to comply with the mandatory provisions prescribed under section 4 sub -section (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code read with section 24 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act. According to learned counsel, non compliance of these provisions invalidated the impugned notification being irrational and without giving an opportunity for objection/suggestion to the petitioners and others. There were vital changes made in the draft notification dated 27 -06 -2012 and eventually, the final notification came to be published on behalf of respondent -State on 26 -07 -2013. The objections or suggestions were not called for the proposal of shifting the area of Shirur Kasar tahsil from Gevrai Sub -division to "Patoda" sub -division, District Beed. The petitioner suggested to include area of Shirur Kasar Tahsil in "Beed" sub -division. But, the respondents without previous notification proceeded to include area of Shirur Kasar tahsil in "Patoda" sub - division. Therefore, learned counsel Mr. Salunke requested to set aside and quash the impugned notification to the extent of inclusion of area of Shirur Kasar tashil in Patoda sub -division.