gavel, auction, law-2492011.jpg

Report by Shreya Gupta

The petitioner, in this case, was Masudeo s/o Rama Kusalkar and there were 8 respondents, The State of Maharashtra, The Divisional Commissioner, The Collector, The Additional Collector, The Sub-Divisional Officer, The Tahsildar, The Talathi, Bhalchandra Dattatraya Sawant. The history of the case lies in 1989 when the government of Maharashtra ordered to allot 1 acre of land to each beneficiary of the backward class.


The case is filed under article 226 of the Indian constitution. The government of Maharashtra allotted 1-acre land to 179 people of backward class for rehabilitation provided to some terms and conditions. The issue arose since land is a part of the revenue village Limpangion known as Joshi Vasti and was getting separated from it to become a different village. For this, the notification to raise objections was sent which caused the main dispute since it was contended that no such notification was issued.


According to the petitioner, the notification declared by respondent no. 4 is bad in law and contrary to section 4 of the Maharashtra land revenue code, 1966 and section 24 of the Bombay general clauses act. The petitioner contends that there should be an issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the notification. It was contended that the notification was not given publicity by law. He contends that the action of the respondent is arbitrary and illegal. He took the support of previous judgements like Prashant Bhausaheb Ghiramkar Vs. The state of Maharashtra reported in 2013 (6) Mh.L.J. 703 and Dr Avinash Ramkrishna Kashiwar and others Vs. The state of Maharashtra and others reported in 2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 830.


According to the respondent’s contention, the proposal for consideration of a new revenue village with details was received. It is also contended that under section 4 (1) of the code, the collector can carry out the powers vested in the state government. They also contended that a village that has more than 300 population needs to be separated and created as a new village. They also contended that the call for objection from the public was issued, published on the notice board and a further hearing was also done. They further contended that the report from the District Superintendent of Land Record, Ahmednagar opined towards the creation of the new revenue village. They contend that they have compiled section 4 of the Maharashtra land revenue code, 1966 and section 24 of the Bombay general clauses act.


The court declares that the respondents have compiled by the law, issued the notifications, heard the objections and further published it too. The court stated that “We cannot sit in the appeal and appreciate the minor procedural lapses caused during the process undertaken by competent authority towards creating separate revenue village. We are concerned with substantive compliance with the provisions keeping in mind the object sought to be achieved. We are satisfied that there is the compliance of requirements indicated under section 4 of the Code.” The court stated that the petitioner cannot derive any advantage from the previous judgements that they have mentioned for reference. The court declared that no such evidence has been brought to our notice that shows that the notification issued impeded any provisions of the Forest act or rules. The court further declared that there is no merit in the writ petition and is therefore dismissed.


CITATION: WP-11923-2018-J..odt

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *