This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a petition regarding land records and service removal. The High Court found that the Tribunal and Departmental Enquiry Officer properly examined the evidence and upheld the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.
No costs.
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.
(1)
22-wp-14913-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
22 WRIT PETITION NO. 14913 OF 2017
VISHWANATH VENKATI BEJGAMWAR..PETITIONER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR
NANDED..RESPONDENT
Mr. Pravin V. suryawanshi, Advocate for the
Petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for Respondent-State.
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.
DATED : 09th AUGUST, 2018.
PER COURT:-
1.Mr. Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the order of dismissal
against the petitioner is erroneous. Without
conducting the proper enquiry, the petitioner has
been dismissed. The Tribunal did not consider the
case of the petitioner in its proper perspective.
The petitioner had given the copies of the 7/12
extract of Survey Nos.37/4/1 and 37/4/2 on the
basis of record available. These aspects has not
been considered by the Authority nor by the
Tribunal.
(2)
22-wp-14913-2017
2.The learned A.G.P. supports the order.
3.It has been observed that the Departmental
Enquiry was initiated. The petitioner did not give
any statement in defence in the Departmental
Enquiry. Old Record of Rights and Record of Rights
after consolidation of land holdings were examined
by the Collector in great detail. The Tribunal has
observed as under:
“It was held that the applicant had issued
7/12 extract of S.No.37/4/2 to Nivruti
against the rules and the order of removal of
service was upheld. The order of Divisional
Commissioner, is also reasoned order and the
issue raised by the Applicants have been
discussed. It is held that:-
“TheS.D.O.hadrejectedthe
contentionsofappellantafter
recording the evidence of Gopalrao
also, who had pointed out that the
P.O.R. pertaining to S. No. 37/4/1 and
S. No. 37/4/2 were not in his hand
writing. The S.D.O. held that there
was no mutation in respect of S.
No.37/4 during the tenure of Gopalrao
as Talathi in Choundi Saza. He has
further held in his order dated
8.12.1977 dismissing appellant that
appellant himself introduced 2 new S.
Nos. i.e. S. Nos.37/4/1 and 37/4/2 in
the P.O.R. and subsequently without any
order of a competent authority in
respect of the mutation entry he has
given a copy of 7/12 extract of the
suit land to Nivrutti Ibra.””
Considering the above, no error has been
4.
(3) 22-wp-14913-2017
committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the
original application. Writ Petition as such is
disposed of. No costs.
(SUNIL K. KOTWAL) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
Devendra/August-18
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal committed any error in dismissing the original application regarding the claim of 7/12 extracts.
Vishwanath Venkatibejgamwar
The State of Maharashtra through the Collector Nanded
S. V. Gangapurwala
Sunil K. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court