Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Parvatibai and others, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Revenue Minister (respondent no.1) under Section 248 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The respondent no.4, Gnyanvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, a society running a school, had been allotted land admeasuring 0.47 R at Survey No. 386 by the Collector on 08.11.2007 under Government Resolution dated 30.06.1992. The petitioners, aggrieved by the allotment, filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Code before the Additional Commissioner. The Additional Commissioner found that a water body existed in part of the field survey no.386 as per the Nistarpatrak, and that the allotment was made without following the procedure prescribed by Section 20(2) of the Code. Consequently, the Additional Commissioner set aside the allotment. The respondent no.4 then appealed under Section 248 of the Code to the State Government. The Revenue Minister allowed the appeal, holding that all adjoining lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and that the water body could give rise to contagious diseases. The petitioners challenged this order. The High Court observed that the Revenue Minister did not consider the fact that the Nistarpatrak reflected the existence of a water body and that the procedure under Section 20(2) had not been followed. The court noted that the Revenue Minister's reasoning regarding contagious diseases was speculative and not based on any material on record. The High Court held that the order of the Revenue Minister was unsustainable and set it aside, restoring the order of the Additional Commissioner. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Allotment of Land - Water Body - Section 247, 248, 20(2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The petitioners challenged the allotment of land to an educational society on the ground that the land contained a water body as per Nistarpatrak and the procedure under Section 20(2) was not followed. The Additional Commissioner set aside the allotment, but the Revenue Minister reversed that order. The High Court held that the Revenue Minister failed to consider the existence of the water body and the non-compliance with Section 20(2), and thus the order was unsustainable. (Paras 2-6)
B) Land Revenue - Nistarpatrak - Evidentiary Value - Section 20(2) Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The Nistarpatrak entry showing a water body was relevant and could not be ignored. The Revenue Minister's observation that the water body could cause diseases was speculative and not based on any material. The High Court restored the Additional Commissioner's order. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order passed by the Revenue Minister under Section 248 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, setting aside the Additional Commissioner's order and confirming the allotment of land to the respondent no.4 Society, was legally sustainable when the land contained a water body and the procedure under Section 20(2) was not followed.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Revenue Minister dated 17.10.2013, and restored the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 30.04.2013. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 248 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Section 20(2) of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Government Resolution dated 30.06.1992
- Nistarpatrak
- water body
- allotment of land
- appeal
- revision
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (07) 169
Writ Petition No. 1550 of 2014
Shri S. Zia Qazi for petitioners, Smt. B. P. Maldhure for respondent nos. 1 to 3, Shri P. C. Madkholkar for respondent no. 4
Parvatibai wd/o Ramesh Bhandari, Prabhakar Ramesh Bhandari, Kamlesh Ramesh Bhandari, Arun Ramesh Bhandari
The Honourable Minister (Revenue), The State of Maharashtra, The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division Nagpur, The Collector, District Gadchiroli, Gnyanvikas Shikshan Prasarak Mandal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Revenue Minister under Section 248 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which set aside the Additional Commissioner's order and confirmed the allotment of land to an educational society.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Revenue Minister's order dated 17.10.2013 and restoration of the Additional Commissioner's order setting aside the allotment.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the allotment of land admeasuring 0.47 R at Survey No. 386 to respondent no.4 Society, claiming that the land contained a water body as per Nistarpatrak and that the procedure under Section 20(2) of the Code was not followed.
Previous Decisions
The Collector allotted the land on 08.11.2007. The Additional Commissioner, in appeal under Section 247, set aside the allotment on the ground of existence of a water body and non-compliance with Section 20(2). The Revenue Minister, in appeal under Section 248, reversed the Additional Commissioner's order and confirmed the allotment.
Issues
Whether the Revenue Minister's order under Section 248 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, was sustainable when the land contained a water body as per Nistarpatrak and the procedure under Section 20(2) was not followed.
Whether the Revenue Minister's reasoning that the water body could cause contagious diseases was based on any material on record.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the land contained a water body as per Nistarpatrak and the allotment was made without following Section 20(2) of the Code.
The respondent no.4 Society argued that all adjoining lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and the water body could give rise to contagious diseases.
Ratio Decidendi
The Revenue Minister failed to consider the existence of the water body as reflected in the Nistarpatrak and the non-compliance with Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The reasoning regarding contagious diseases was speculative and not based on any material. Therefore, the order of the Revenue Minister was unsustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The Additional Commissioner found that a water body existed in part of field survey no.386 and the Nistarpatrak reflected such user.
The Revenue Minister did not consider the fact that the Nistarpatrak reflected the existence of a water body and that the procedure under Section 20(2) had not been followed.
The reasoning of the Revenue Minister that the water body could give rise to contagious diseases is not based on any material on record.
Procedural History
The Collector allotted land to respondent no.4 on 08.11.2007. Petitioners appealed under Section 247 to Additional Commissioner, who set aside allotment on 30.04.2013. Respondent no.4 appealed under Section 248 to Revenue Minister, who allowed appeal on 17.10.2013. Petitioners filed writ petition in High Court, which was allowed on 21.07.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 247, Section 248, Section 20(2)
