Dismissed

Prakash Hiraman Bhill and Ors. v. Vitthal Lmanik Choudhari and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2011CA/2248/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Divided bench held that applicants claiming independent possession of agricultural land are not entitled to regularization since they are not allottees nor aggrieved by the 1989 allotment. Applications treated as misconceived with liberty to take further legal steps.

What did the court decide?

Applications disposed of as misconceived with liberty to applicants to take such steps as are open in law.

Prakash Hiraman Bhill and Ors. Vs Vitthal Lmanik Choudhari… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Civil Application No. 2248 of 2010 ( In Review Application Stamp No. 1188/2010 ) ( In Writ Petition No. 3046 of 1990 ) With

¶4

Review Application Stamp No. 1188 of 2010

¶5

Prakash s/o. Hiraman Bhill

& 19 others.

.. Applicants

versus

Shri Vitthal Manik Choudhari .. Respondents & 6 others.

¶10

(Original respondent

¶11

Mr. A.G. Talhar, Advocate, for the applicants.

¶12

Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent no.1 (original petitioner).

¶13

Respondent nos.2 and 3 served.

¶14

Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.4 to 7.

¶15

(2)

¶16

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶17

DATE : 5TH JANUARY 2011

¶18

COURT'S ORDER :

¶19

Mr. A.G. Talhar, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, contends that the applicants are in possession of agricultural lands since 1990 and are cultivating it. He further contends that the applicants are entitled to regularization of their possession and their prayers for regularization have been rejected only because of orders of this Court dated 9th July 2007 in Writ Petition No. 3046 of 1990. The rejection has been on 20th July 2009 by the Divisional Commissioner and earlier on 5-5-2009 by the District Collector. He states that because of these orders, applicants got knowledge of High Court orders and hence there is delay of 892 days in filing the application for review.

¶20

According to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, entitlement of applicants needs to be considered on merits and delay needs to be condoned, as all relevant facts were not before this Court when it decided Writ Petition No. 3046/1990. He has further contended that the judgment dated 9th July 2007, delivered in Writ Petition No. 3046 of 1990 needs to be recalled and the petition needs to be heard after extending

¶21

(3)

¶22

appropriate opportunity to these applicants.

¶23

Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 (writ petitioner), states that the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3046/1990 are allottees placed in possession of agricultural land as per provisions of Section 27(4) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. He states that this allotment has been done in the year 1989 and it was never questioned. As such, there is no question of regularizing alleged possession of applicants on the said land. He further contends that the effort being made is dishonest and prayer for review is also misconceived.

¶24

In Writ Petition No. 3046/1990, grievance was made by the allottees of agricultural land. The said land was declared surplus and thereafter was allotted to them in accordance with law. The applicants before this Court do not claim to be either allottees nor are they persons dissatisfied with such allotment. They are trying to establish their independent possession and they have not challenged the procedure for allotment followed in the year 1989.

¶25

I, therefore, find that the grievance of the present applicants has got no bearing on the judgment dated 9th July

¶26

(4)

¶27

2007, in Writ Petition No. 3046/1990, delivered by this Court.

¶28

With liberty to the applicants, to take such steps as are open in law, the present applications are, therefore, disposed of as misconceived. No costs.

¶29

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI )

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

bgp/ca2248etc

Prakash Hiraman Bhill and Ors. v. Vitthal Lmanik Choudhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Hiraman Bhill and Ors. v. Vitthal Lmanik Choudhari and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalta Prasad Mahadev Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Jethalal Lakhamshi Charitable Trust Vs Parshwanath Charitable Trust and 4 Ors.

Vilas Kedari Nikam Vs Rajnikant Appaji Shinde and Ors.

Narsingrao Balbhimrao Deshmukh. Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Gangya Khandya. Vs Gangadhar Tanaji and Others.

Devba Gyanaji. Vs Digambar Moreshwar (L.Rs.)Ramkanu and Others.