w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Parvatibai & Others v/s The Honourable Minister (Revenue), The State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- MAHARASHTRA CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = L71100MH1982PLC028750

    Writ Petition No. 1550 of 2014

    Decided On, 21 July 2015

    At, In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. CHANDURKAR

    For the Petitioners: S. Zia Qazi, Counsel. For the Respondents: R1 to R3, B.P. Maldhure, AGP, R4, P.C. Madkholkar, Counsel.



Judgment Text

Oral Judgment:

1. Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition takes exception to the order passed by the respondent no.1 dated 17.10.2013 thereby allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.4 and in turn setting aside order passed by the Additional Commissioner in proceedings under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the said Code). The respondent no.4 is a Society that is running a High School and Junior College. It made an application for allotment of land admeasuring 0.47 R at Survey No. 386 in terms of Government Resolution dated 30.06.1992. On 08.11.2007 the Collector allotted aforesaid land to the respondent no.4 Society for being used to accommodate the school building and playground. Being aggrieved the present petitioners filed an appeal under Section 247 of the Code.

In appeal, the Additional Commissioner found that a water body existed in part of field survey no.386 and the Nistarpatrak reflected such user. However said entry has been deleted and the land in question came to be allotted to the respondent no.1 without following the procedure prescribed by Section 20(2) of the Code. The allotment was therefore set aside. In appeal under Section 248 of the Code filed by respondent no.4, the State Government held that all adjoining lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and it was likely that the water body could give rise to contiguous diseases. On that count the order passed by the Additional Commissioner was set aside and the allotment in favour of respondent no. 4 was maintained.

3. Shri S. Z. Qazi learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Additional Commissioner after considering the entire records found that the procedure contemplated by Section 20(2) of the Code had not been followed. He submitted that in the Development Plan notified in the year 2006 said site had been shown with the remark that a water body existed therein. It was on that basis that the allotment had been set aside. According to him, the Hon'ble Minister without considering these aspects set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner by observing that it was likely that the water body could result in spread of the diseases and that the said land could be used as playground. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari Vs. Kamala Devi and others (2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 496.

5. Shri P. C. Madkholkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 supported the impugned order. According to him after following the entire procedure as prescribed, the land in question had been allotted to the respondent no.4. He submitted that all adjoining lands had been converted for non-agricultural use and a school was being run in the vicinity. The land in question was to be used as playground.

He challenged the locus of the present petitioners on the ground that they had no legal right to question the allotment in favour of the respondent no.4. He also referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 to indicate that all necessary procedure had been duly complied. He also submitted that due to the interim orders passed, all further developmental activities that were to be conducted by the respondent no.4 Society had come to a standstill. He then urged that the observations of the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari (supra) were not applicable to the present case.

6. Smt. B. P. Maldhure, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 3 relied upon the affidavit filed on record and submitted that on 20.03.2006 the Nistar Patrak has been modified and the entry as regards waterbody had been deleted.

7. I have carefully considered the respective submissions. The existence of a waterbody at Survey No. 386 to the extent of 0.47 R. is clear from the documents filed on record. The Nistar Patrak which recorded said entry came to be modified in terms of Section 161(3) of the Code. Prior to such modification, a proclamation was issued and objections had been called for. As there was no response pursuant to such proclamation, the Nistar Patrak came to be modified. The order dated 20.03.2006 indicates the procedure as contemplated by Section 161(3) of the Code for modifying the Nistar Patrak had been duly followed.

8. The Additional Commissioner in his order dated 09.08.2010 has recorded a finding that the grant of aforesaid land to the respondent no.4 was without making any enquiry and without following the procedure prescribed under Section 20(2) of the Code. This finding recorded by the Additional Commissioner has not been disturbed by the Hon'ble Minister. On the contrary, the issuance of proclamation under Section 161(3) of the said Code has been relied on to indicate as if objections had been called for grant of land to the respondent no. 4. The procedure required to be followed under Section 20(2) of the Code is separate and independent of the procedure that was followed for modifying the Nistar Patrak. Merely because proclamation was issued under Section 161(3) of the Code, the same would not mean that such procedure was also followed for purposes of Section 20(2) of the Code.

9. At this stage, reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 29 can be usefully made. In the matter of allotment of land, in paragraphs 66 and 67 it has been observed as under:

'66. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors and invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution.

67. This, however, does not mean that the State can never allot land to the institutions/organisations engaged in educational, cultural, social or philanthropic activities or are rendering service to the society except by way of auction. Nevertheless, it is necessary to observe that once a piece of land is earmarked or identified for allotment to institutions/organisations engaged in any such activity, the actual exercise of allotment must be done in a manner consistent with the doctrine of equality. The competent authority should, as a matter of course, issue an advertisement incorporating therein the conditions of eligibility so as to enable all similarly situated eligible persons, institutions/organisations to participate in the process of allotment, whether by way of auction or otherwise. In a given case the Government may allot land at a fixed price but in that case also allotment must be preceded by a wholesome exercise consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution.'

The aforesaid observations highlight the importance of following the necessary produce while making allotment under Section 20 of the Code.

10. In so far as the aspect of locus of the petitioners is concerned, it is to be noted that in the memorandum of appeal filed by the petitioners before the Additional Commissioner it has been stated that the predecessor of the petitioners had been granted rights to use water from the waterbody for irrigation purposes vide order dated 20.09.1980. This right was also considered by the Additional Commissioner when he entertained the appeal at the behest of the petitioners. It therefore cannot be said that the petitioners had no locus to challenge the allotment. This objection raised on behalf of respondent no.4 does not deserve to be upheld.

11. In the appellate order, it has been held by the Additional Commissioner that the land in question is reflected in the Development Plan and existence of waterbody has been recognised. This notification is dated 16.08.2006 but said relevant aspect has not been considered by the Hon'ble Minister while setting aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. Moreover, the consideration that continuation of the water body could result in spread of diseases is hardly relevant in the matter of allotment of land under Section 20(2) of the Code. The impugned order therefore indicates consideration of irrelevant factors and non-consideration of factors that were relevant in the matter. The importance of protecting material resources has been highlighted in the decision of the Supreme Court in Hinchal Tiwari (supra) and same appears to have been given a go by in the impugned order.

12. Hence, in the absence of any enquiry and due procedure being followed under Section 20(2) of the Code, the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister cannot be sustained. In view of aforesaid discussion, the following

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

order is passed: 1] Order dated 17.10.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Minister is set aside. 2] The order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner stands restored. 3] It is open for the respondent no.4 to take appropriate steps if it seeks allotment of aforesaid land in accordance with law. Similarly, in terms of the order dated 09.08.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner it is open for the petitioners to take appropriate steps for restoration of the Nistar entries, if advised. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs. It is stated by the learned counsel for respondent no.4 that there is a building standing on part of Survey No. 386 that came to be allotted to the respondent no. 4 by order of allotment dated 08.11.2007. In that view of the matter, for a period of four months from today no coercive steps shall be taken to demolish the existing construction that is standing on 0.47 R. of Survey No. 386 of Mouza Virsi Tukum at Desaiganj, Wadsa.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

19-06-2020 Vishwas Utagi & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-06-2020 Komal Hiwale Versus State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
12-06-2020 Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Station Officer, Akheda Balapur, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-06-2020 M/s. Thakur Stone Quarries through its Partner Munesh Hotilal Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Vishnupant Motba Kesarkar Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-06-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Versus Principal, College of Engineering, Pune High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-06-2020 Sahyog Homes Ltd. Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-06-2020 Sachin @ Satish Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
01-06-2020 Citizen Forum for Equality, a registered NGO, vide registration no:-MH/645/11, through its President Madhukar Ganpat Kukde Versus The State of Maharashtra, through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
29-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad Versus Prabhakar Karbhari Ghatmale & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
26-05-2020 State of Maharashtra Versus Mangesh & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Bhagtam & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
26-05-2020 Abhinav Bharat Congress & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-05-2020 Ms. X Versus State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Mohiuddin Vaid Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Grant Medical Foundation Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 A.P. Suryaprakasam Versus Superintendent of Police, Sangli District, Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Agriculture, Animal Hubandary, Dairy Development & Fisheries Department, Mantralaya & Another Versus Madhukar Suryabhan Ingale In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-05-2020 Amalner Municipal Council, Amalner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
08-05-2020 Chandrakant Kotecha Charitable Trust Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-05-2020 Pratik & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Mahur Dist. Nanded & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-05-2020 Zafar Jamal Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shekhar @ Mukesh Sanadi Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 Pradeep Gandhy Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others Supreme Court of India
03-05-2020 Mohammad Nishat Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
30-04-2020 Mohan Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through : The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Syed Salim & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantrayalay & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Shivray Kulkarni & Others Versus State of Maharashtra &Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Sardar Manjieeth Singh Jagan Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 Babu Bhairu Ovhal & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
30-04-2020 Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Limited & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary for Co-operation, Marketing & Textile Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
30-04-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Baban Gangaram Chirate & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Shankar Sarvotam Pai & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Abuzar Shaikh Abdul Kalam Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-04-2020 Ajay Versus State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
27-04-2020 Aishwarya Atul Pusalkar Versus Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 Arvind Singh Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 High Court on its own motion Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
21-04-2020 Deodutta Gangadhar Marathe Versus The State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 The Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
15-04-2020 Pankaj Rajmachikar Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Mohammad Zakir Mohammad Bashir Solanki Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Nilesh Shriniwas Baswant Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
08-04-2020 C.H. Sharma & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Sarva Hara Jan Andolan through Ulka Mahajan & Another Versus State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
08-04-2020 Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur, Ravindranath Tagore Marg, through its Registrar & Another Versus State of Maharashtra, Department of Higher and Technical Education, Mantralaya, through its Secretary & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-04-2020 Shahid Bhagat Singh Cooperative Housing Society Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
27-03-2020 Azam Khan Versus The State of Maharashtra Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shankar Khandu Thombare & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Kondiba Bahiru Thambare High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Professor Smt. Manorama Prakash Khandekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Higher and Technical Education Department, through its Secretary, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
20-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Shankar Bhintade High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Manglam Roongta & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-03-2020 Ritesh Rajendra Thakur Versus State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra (Through – PI of Chavani Police Station, Malegaon, District - Nasik) Versus Dr. Baban Lahanu Gangurde & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Chetan Prabhakar Rajwade Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Tribal Development Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
17-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
17-03-2020 Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited Through its Superintending Engineer, Admn. Versus M/.Pranavditya Spinning Mills Ltd. High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 CEAT Limited (formerly known as Ceat Tyres of India Ltd.) Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Jeevan Niwas Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through Department of Co-operation & Textiles, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Ram Pralhad Khatri & Others Versus State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Chirag Sundarlal Gupta Versus The State of Maharashtra (through Kurar Village Police Station High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Nagrik Samanvya Samiti & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-03-2020 Rajendra & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Ishwar & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Co-operation and Textile Department, Maharashtra State Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Nivrutti Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 Sayyad Azim Sayyad Mnazur & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another Versus Mohd. Nazir & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-03-2020 Milind Bhimsing Shirsath Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Sanjay Devaji Ramteke Versus The State of Maharashtra, through PSO In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-03-2020 Kumari Shaikh Shashim Mhamulal Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Lahu Bhausaheb Sonwane Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
09-03-2020 Jaggu Sardar @ Jagdish Tirathsing Labana @ Punjabi Versus The State of Maharashtra (Through the Office of the Government Pleader, High Court, A.S. Mumbai) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
09-03-2020 Hasina Siraj Shaikh Versus State of Maharashtra Secretary through Department of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Dr. Nishigandha Ramchandra Naik Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
06-03-2020 Manohar Bhimraoji Mahalle & Others Versus State of Maharashtra & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Balaso Gulab Pendhari & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Vikrant Vikas Raikar, Proprietor of M/s. Elegant Constructions Versus State of Maharashtra, through Government Pleader & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Gopal Versus State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shaikh Jabbarlal Mohamad High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Devyani Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
05-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Anant Dattatraya Pashilkar High Court of Judicature at Bombay
05-03-2020 Mohammed Aslam Azad Shaikh Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Home Department (Special) Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Dr. Anil D. Garje Versus The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary Higher & Technical Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Radhabai Gabaji Rokade Versus The State of Maharashtra High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Kishor Laxman Lonari, Convict No. C/52 Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Prison – 3, State of Maharashtra, Home Department, Mantralaya In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
04-03-2020 Ravindra Manik Shinde & Another Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-03-2020 Haseena Babu Sanadi @ Haseena Rasul Tadwal Versus State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Social Justice & Special Assistance Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
03-03-2020 Sainath Annasaheb Waghchaure & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Dadarao & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
03-03-2020 Priyanka Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Principle Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Shivaji Daulu Patil & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
02-03-2020 The State of Maharashtra Versus Mansing Shankarrao Mane & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box