SHASHIKANT RAMDAS WADHOKAR Vs. TAHSILDAR SHEGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Kale, learned AGP for respondent No. 1. Nobody has appeared for respondents No.2 & 4.

(2.) By the impugned order/ communication dated 15.02.2005, Respondent No.l has called upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.90,750/- as 50% of the amount required to regularize the sale of land in his favour. The land is part of survey No.69/3, ad measuring 1 Hectare and 21R and it is the contention of Respondent No. 1 that said land was allotted under Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, to Kamlakar Keshaorao Shegokar and Smt. Parvatibai Keshaorao Shegokar. The land, therefore, could not have been sold and if the sale was to be effected, previous permission of State Government was essential.

(3.) Shri. Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is not the first purchaser of that land. He points out that in 7/12 extracts for the year 1993-94, the land was recorded in the name of Kamlalkar and Parvatibai in Bhumiswami rights and revenue records never disclosed that it was allotted to them under the State Ceiling Act. Kamlakar and Parvatibai sold this land to one Vasant Baburao Shendge on 05.06.1995 by registered sale deed. The petitioner purchased this land from said Vasant vide registered sale deed dated 07.02.1996. The petitioner received notice from the respondents in this respect and then he got knowledge of the irregularity. In terms of provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as Ceiling Act) the State Government has issued revised rules and as per those revised rules, for such purchases, the petitioner was expected to deposit 50% of the unearned income to State Government. As per said rule, the petitioner gave undertaking and his sale has been regularized. Shri. Saboo, learned counsel points out that in stead of finding out market value as on 07.02.1996, Respondent No.l has determined market value prevailing in 2004 and on that basis the unearned income of 50%, i.e. amount of Rs.90,750/- is being demanded from the petitioner. He argues that the exercise is contrary to revised rules as issued in 2001 and in any case, the said amount ought to have been apportioned between the previous purchaser Shri. Shendge and the original allottees viz., Kamlakar and Parvatibai.