This writ petition challenged the allotment of agricultural land to the State Government employees through a draw of lots, despite the petitioner's claim to the specific plot. The Court held that entitlement is to the land block, not the specific plot, and dismissed the petition.
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.
wp596613.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5966 OF 2013
Sadashiv s/o Mahipat Kulkarni & another
Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate holding for Mr.Ashwin P. Hon, advocate for petitioners Mr.K.J.Ghute Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.P.P.Dhorde, advocate for Respondent No.5.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
V.K.JADHAV, JJ. DATE :20th August, 2014
PER COURT:
1 Petitioners are raising challenge to the allotment of land S.No.221, admeasuring 13 acres 11 gunthas, situate at Gondavani, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar, to Respondents No.5 & 6.
2 It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are entitled to claim 6 acres and 25-1/2 gunthas land, since they are khandkari and leased out equal quantity of land in favour of Belapur Sugar factory. It is also not a matter of dispute that petitioners have been allotted 4 acres 19 gunthas land in 1980 and their entitlement remains to be satisfied is to the extent of 2 acres 6 gunthas. Petitioners stake claim to the land S.No.221 which originally belonged to them and was made available for allotment in the year 2013. It was observed that since there are more than one claimants claiming aforesaid land in terms of the scheme, more particularly clauses 4.6 and 4.7 by draw of lots, said land has been allotted in favour of Respondents No.5 & 6.
3 The petitioners claim that since the land originally belonged
{2}
wp596613.odt
to them, they have preferential right and the said land ought not to have been allotted in favour of Respondents No.5 and 6. The petitioners also allege mala fide contending that since the land situate near Shrirampur city, concerned Respondents, in collusion with Government officers, had secured allotment in their favour.
4 As has been observed earlier, the petitioners have already received allotment of 4 acres 19 gunthas land in the year 1980 itself and admittedly, land allotted to the petitioners did not originally belong to them. It is not necessary, considering the scheme formulated by the Respondents, that the land belonging to a particular person, must be allotted to him. His entitlement is to the land, which is part of the concerned 'Mala' / block. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioners are entitled to claim allotment of 2 acres 6 gunthas balance land out of the said block and the block consists of number of villages.
5 On reading clauses 4.6 and 4.7 of the scheme, we do not find infirmity in the order of allotment of area in favour of Respondent No.5 and another person who was also equally entitled to claim the property. Writ Petition is devoid of substance.
6 Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
V.K.JADHAV JUDGE
R.M.BORDE JUDGE
adb/wp596613
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the allotment of land via draw of lots to equally entitled claimants is legally infirm under the scheme.
Whether the petitioners' preferential right to the specific plot overrides the scheme's decision by lot.
Sadashiv s/o Mahipat Kulkarni
The State of Maharashtra
Respondents No. 5 & 6
R.M. Borde
V.K. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
