Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Subhash Mutha, claimed ownership of Plot No.116, Sheet No.10B, in Pandharkawda, and applied for allotment of an adjacent government strip of land, Plot No.119/1, admeasuring 30.8 sq.mtrs. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a proclamation on 2nd June 1994, and after receiving no objection from the Municipal Council, allotted the land to the petitioner on 10th October 1997. The petitioner deposited the occupancy price of Rs.10,870 and executed an agreement, and possession was handed over. Mutation entries were made on 19th November 1997. Respondent No.2 (Jawarimal Bogawat) and Respondent No.3 (M/s Madanlal Gokulchand Bhoot) challenged the allotment before the Collector, who allowed the appeal on 24th February 1999, setting aside the allotment. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, which was dismissed on 5th October 2002. Subsequently, the petitioner filed proceedings under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the State Government, which were also dismissed by the impugned order. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The High Court noted that the allotment was made without proper inquiry and without notice to interested parties, and the appellate authorities had rightly set it aside. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Allotment of Government Land - Procedural Irregularities - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Sections 247, 258 - The petitioner claimed ownership of Plot No.116 and applied for allotment of adjacent government land (Plot No.119/1). The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted the land without proper inquiry and without notice to interested parties. The Collector and Additional Commissioner set aside the allotment. The High Court held that the allotment was vitiated due to lack of notice and proper procedure, and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 2-5)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The petitioner challenged the cancellation of land allotment through a writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner had availed of remedies under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, and the writ petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had not exhausted all remedies. However, the court examined the merits and found no infirmity in the impugned order. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the allotment of government land to the petitioner was valid and whether the cancellation by the appellate authorities was justified.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Collector, Additional Commissioner, and State Government cancelling the allotment of land to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Allotment of government land must follow due process
- including proper inquiry and notice to interested parties
- Cancellation of allotment by appellate authority is justified if procedural irregularities exist
- Writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India not maintainable if alternative remedy not exhausted
Case Details
2015 LawText (BOM) (10) 145
WRIT PETITION NO. 3960 OF 2004
Shri S.V. Purohit for Petitioner, Shri S.M. Bhagde for Respondent No.1, Shri J.J. Chandurkar for Respondent No.3
Subhash S/o. Nemichand Mutha
State of Maharashtra, Smt. Icharajbai Wd/o. Jawarimal Bogawat, M/s. Madanlal Gokulchand Bhoot
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the cancellation of allotment of government land.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the order of the State Government dismissing his claim under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's allotment of government land was cancelled by the Collector and subsequent appeals were dismissed.
Previous Decisions
Sub-Divisional Officer allotted land on 10th October 1997; Collector allowed appeal on 24th February 1999; Additional Commissioner dismissed revision on 5th October 2002; State Government dismissed proceedings under Section 258.
Issues
Whether the allotment of government land to the petitioner was valid?
Whether the cancellation of allotment by the appellate authorities was justified?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the allotment was valid as per procedure and he had deposited the occupancy price and taken possession.
Respondents argued that the allotment was made without proper inquiry and without notice to interested parties.
Ratio Decidendi
Allotment of government land must be made after proper inquiry and notice to all interested parties. Failure to do so vitiates the allotment, and appellate authorities are justified in setting it aside.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner is claiming to be the owner of Plot No.116, Sheet No.10B along with the house constructed over it, applied for allotment of a small strip of land bearing Plot No.119/1, Sheet No.10B, admeasuring 30.8 sq.mtrs.
The SubDivisional Officer issued proclamation on or about 2nd June, 1994 and as nobody objected, the SubDivisional Officer, after calling the report and after receiving no objection from the Municipal Council, Pandharkawada issued the order dated 10th October, 1997 allotting the strip of land to the petitioner.
The respondent No.2 Shri Jawarimal Motilalji Bogawat and the respondent No.3 challenged the order issued by the SubDivisional Officer by filing appeal before the Collector which came to be allowed on 24th February, 1999.
The petitioner filed proceedings under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the State Government. These proceedings are decided by the impugned order and the claim made by the petitioner is dismissed.
Procedural History
The Sub-Divisional Officer allotted land to petitioner on 10th October 1997. Respondent No.2 and 3 appealed to Collector, who allowed appeal on 24th February 1999. Petitioner filed revision before Additional Commissioner, dismissed on 5th October 2002. Petitioner then filed proceedings under Section 258 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before State Government, which were dismissed. Petitioner filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 247, 258
- Constitution of India: 226
