Dismissed

Shri. Maruti Namdeo Lavate and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Upper Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2014WP/3277/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition concerning an application for land re-grant to Khandakaris. The court held that a State Government circular could not extend the statutory 90-day limit prescribed under Section 28-1AA of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, amended by Act No.1 of 2012.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Maruti Namdeo Lavate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Upper Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

wp.3277-2014

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3277 OF 2014

¶6

Shri Maruti Namdeo Lavate & Anr. ..Petitioners. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Kisan B. Sonwalkar for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM: A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 17^th November 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

¶11

2 The Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings)

¶12

Act, 1961 (for short “the said Act”) was amended in the year 2001 by incorporating Section 28-1AA.

¶13

3 Rules were framed by the State Government under sub-section 28-1 AA providing for grant of land to persons known as “Khandakaris” .

¶14

The provision was made for grant of lands vesting in Maharashtra State Agricultural Corporation. The Petitioners made an application under the said provision on 30^th December 2013 before the District Collector. The

¶15

said application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 17^th

¶16

¶17

wp.3277-2014

¶18

February 2014 by the Sub-Divisional Officer by observing that the application was not made within the time stipulated by law. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner relies upon the order dated 15^th October 2013 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.9652 of 2013 (Nandkumar Vasant Deshpande & Ors. Vs. The Collector, Solapur & Ors.). He urged that in an identical case, directions were issued by this Court directing the State Government to consider the application.

¶19

4 The learned AGP for State has tendered across the bar a copy of the Act No.1 of 2012 by which the said Act has been amended. What is amended is sub-section 3 of Section 28-1 AA by incorporating additional proviso. The proviso is that those who did not apply within the period of 90 days from the date on which amended Act of 2001 came into force, will be eligible to apply within a period of 90 days from the date on which the said Act No.1 of 2012 came into force. The said Act came into force on 2^nd February 2012.

¶20

5 Faced with the said amendment made by the said Act No.1 of 2012, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners relies upon the Circular of the State Government which is at pages 36 to 43 of the petition. He urged that in fact the format of the application in terms of amendment made by the Act No.1 of 2012 was provided for the first time on 22^nd

¶21

¶22

wp.3277-2014

¶23

March 2012 and therefore, the Petitioners cannot be blamed for the delay.

¶24

6 We have considered the submission. In terms of last proviso added to the sub-section 3 of Section 28-1 AA of the said Act by Act No.1 of 2012, the Petitioners could have applied for re-grant within period of 90 days from 2^nd February 2012. As stated earlier, the application made by the Petitioners is of 30^th December 2013. There is no provision pointed out in the said Act which confers powers on the concerned authorities to extend the time of 90 days provided in the statute. The Circular on which the Petitioners are relying upon is issued as a guideline to guide the Officers who are dealing with the applications for re-grant. The said guideline cannot extend the time provided in the statute to make an application expires on 1^st May 2012. Therefore, the guideline will not help the Petitioners.

¶25

7 As far as the order dated 15^th October 2013 in Writ Petition

¶26

No.9652 of 2013 is concerned, it is obvious that the Respondents did not

¶27

invite attention of the Court to the provisions of the said Act No.1 of 2012. In any event, the order dated 15^th October 2013 does not lay down any law.

¶28

It merely directs that the Collector to dispose of the application for regrant.

¶29