Writ petition challenging dismissal of appeal claiming entitlement to alluvial land. Court held petitioner not entitled to land as prior judgment established he was not tenant of adjacent surveyed land.
Petition dismissed; order of Additional Commissioner upheld; Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
vss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3895 OF 1991
Madhukar Ramchandra Pawar ... Petitioner
V/s.
The Additional Commissioner,
Pune Division & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.Surel S. Shah for Petitioner
Mr.Asif Patel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3
Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.4
CORAM: SMT.NISHITAMHATRE, J.
DATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. The petition has been filed against the order
dated 11.7.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner,
Pune Camp, Kolhapur dismissing Appeal No.Land/Satara/
73/1991. The order confirms the order of the Additional
Collector, Satara dated 18.6.1991 in case No.1 of 1991.
By this order, the petitioner’s claim to alluvial land
has been dismissed.
2. The land in question is survey No.801 consisting
of 4 acres 15 gunthas. Three acres of this land was
purchased by one Apte. The petitioner claims to be a
tenant of Apte and that he is in possession of Survey
No.809/A/2. According to the petitioner, because of his
occupation of this land, he was entitled to the alluvial
: 2 :
land which was adjacent to this land. Admittedly, the
tenancy proceedings which were pending before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were decided in favour of
the petitioner. That judgment was challenged in this
Court. By an order of 12.10.1979 in Special Civil
Application No.1457 of 1977, the Division Bench of this
Court held that the petitioner is not a tenant of Survey
No.809/A/2 land and that in fact it was Respondent No.4
who was the original owner.
3. Section 32 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
reads as under:
(1) When it appears to the Collector that any
alluvial land, which vests under any law for the
time being in force in the State Government, may
with due regard to the interests of the public
revenue be disposed of, he shall, subject to the
rules made by the State Government in this
behalf, offer the same to the occupant (if any)
of the bank or shore on which such alluvial land
has formed. The price of the land so offered
shall not exceed three times the annual
assessment thereof.
(2) If the occupant does not accept the offer,
the Collector may dispose of the land without
any restrictions as to price.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this section,
not withstanding anything containe din clause
(24) of section 2, if the bank of shore has been
mortgaged with possession, the mortgagor shall
be deemed to be the occupant thereof.
4. Thus, had the petitioner been able to
substantiate his case that survey No.809/A/2 was in his
possession and that he was a tenant on that land, he
: 3 :
could have been entitled to the adjacent land which was
alluvial land. However, in view of the judgment and
order of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1457
of 1977 the petitioner is not entitled to that land.
The impugned order need not be reversed. Apart from
this, Respondent No.4 had obtained a permanent
injunction against the petitioner from disturbing his
possession over survey No.809/A/2. In these
circumstances, the claim made by the petitioner that he
is entitled to the alluvial land adjacent to survey
No.809/A/2 cannot be accepted.
5. The order passed by the additional Commissioner
cannot be faulted and is hereby upheld. The Petition is
dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to alluvial land adjacent to Survey No.809/A/2 given prior findings that he is not the tenant of that survey.
Whether the order of the Additional Cantonment Board disallowing the petitioner's claim in appeal should be reversed.
Whether the petitioner's claim must fail in view of the permanent injunction obtained by Respondent No.4.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Special Civil Application No.1457 of 1977Distinguished¶16
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Madhukar Ramchandra Pawar
The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division
The Additional Collector, Satara
Respondent No.4
Nishita Mhatre
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court