Bombay High Court High Court

Ganpat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 February, 2009

Bombay High Court
Ganpat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 3 February, 2009
Bench: P. R. Borkar
          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD.


                WRIT PETITION NO. 3003 OF 1990




                                                               
     Ganpat s/o. Ashruba Koli                  ]..Petitioners
     (since deceased) his L.Rs.




                                       
     1) Narayan s/o. Ganpat Koli,
        Age. 56 yrs., Occ. Service & Agri.
        R/o. Wasadi, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.




                                      
     2) Ashok s/o. Ganpat Koli,
        Age. 42 yrs., Occ. Service & Agri.
        R/o. Wasadi, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.




                             
     3) Sow. Mandanbai w/o. Madhavrao Suryawanshi,
        Age. 50 yrs., Occ. Household & Agri.
                  
        R/o. Borsar, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

     4) Sou. Indubai w/o. Kacharu Wagh,
                 
        Age. 48 yrs., Occ. Household & Agri.,
        R/o. Nimbhora, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.

     5. Sou. Sulochana w/o. Sarjerao Birare,
        Age. 46 yrs., Occ. Household & Agri.,
      


        R/o. Ghatshendra, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.
   



     6. Sou. Latabai Bhikan Bale,
        Age. 44 yrs., Occ. Household & Agri.,
        R/o. Upla, Tal. Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.





                            VERSUS


     1. The State of Maharashtra               ]..Respondents





     2. The Secretary to Govt. of
        Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Bombay.

     3. The Divisional Commissioner,
        Aurangabad.




                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
                                        (     2    )




     4. The Collector, Aurangabad.

     5. Sub-Divisional Officer-R,
        Tal. Vaijapur, Dist. Aurangabad.




                                                                                
     6. Tahsildar, Kannad,
        Dist. Aurangabad.




                                                        
     7. Block Development Officer,
        Tal. Kannad, Dist. Aurangabad.




                                                       
     Shri N.N. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioners.
     Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.G.P. for the respondents.


                                             CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J.

DATED : 3rd FEBRUARY,2009.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

:

. This is a writ petition filed by original

encroacher – Ganpat Ashruba Koli for regularization of

encroachment made by him in view of Government

Resolution dated 12th September, 1979, produced at

Exh. “B” with the petition and to give directions to

the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from

Survey No.46 (Gat No.220) of village Vasadi, Tal.

Kannad and to quash and set aside order dated

03.02.1988 whereby the petitioner was informed that

his encroachment cannot be regularized as the land is

‘Khalwadi’ (land used for threshing harvest).

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be

stated as below:-

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::

                                        (    3    )




     .          Original       petitioner        Ganpat Ashruba Koli                  was




                                                                                 
     resident     of     village       Vasadi,         Tal.        Kannad,         Dist.

     Aurangbad.         He claimed that he had been in possession




                                                         
     of     Survey No.46 (Block No.220) since the time of                             his

     forefather.         They    have       been cultivating              the      land.




                                                        
     Since     they     have    made       encroachment          over       the      said

     Government        land, as per G.R.             dated 12.09.1979, he is

     entitled     to     have the encroachment                regularized.              He




                                          
     made     applications       to     that         effect      to       respondent

     authorities.

     by
                        

However, respondent authorities informed

letter dated 03.02.1988 (copy of which is produced

at Exh.”Z-1″) that since the land was ‘Khalwadi’, G.R.

dated 12th September, 1979, is not applicable and his

prayer cannot be granted. At the same time the

respondents have also taken steps for taking back

removal of encroachment and gave notice of eviction.

In the circumstances, the petitioner approached this

Court for directions to the respondents to regularise

the encroachment and not disturbing his possession.

3. Respondent Nos.4 and 6 have appeared and filed

affidavit-in-reply. They stated that the land in

question is ‘Khalwadi’ and as such the G.R. in

question is not applicable. The encroachment cannot

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 4 )

be regularized under the policy of the Government.

The respondents relied upon G.R. dated 18th January,

1996, copy of which is taken on record and marked

“R-X” for identification. It is also stated that

though Grampanchayat has passed resolution and

recommended case of the petitioner for regularisation,

the property is belonging to the Government. The

Grampanchayat is not possessor and/or owner of the

property and cannot have any say in disposal of the

property. It is also stated that the petitioner had

made

encroachment and cultivating land unauthorizedly

since 1970-71 and not prior to that.

4. At Exh.”A” the petitioner produced his caste

certificate to show that he belonged to Koli Mahadev –

a Scheduled Tribe. Exh. “B” is the G.R. in question

and it relates to regularization of the encroachment

made for cultivation on the Government waste lands,

Gairan lands, revenue forest lands and forest lands

incharge of the Forest Department. The criteria for

regularization were laid down. The date relevant for

regularization is 31.03.1978. By the said G.R. in

question it was made clear that all those

encroachments made in between 01.04.1972 to 31.03.1978

irrespective of whether the encroachment was

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 5 )

subsisting on 31.03.1978 should be regularized.

Various terms and conditions for regularization are

also laid down. The extent to which regularization

can be made is also laid down in paragraph 7. The

G.R. also lays down that the regularization can be up

to a particular area of land and it is referred to as

‘Standard Area’. At Exh. “C” there is a letter dated

30.12.1961 informing the original petitioner Ganpat

Koli in response to his application dated 18.12.1961

and 19.12.1961 addressed to the Dy. Collector,

Vaijapur,

that this land was ‘Khalwadi’ land and same

cannot be given for cultivation. So, it is clear that

in 1961-1962 the petitioner had applied for getting

the land from ‘Khalwadi’ for cultivation. At Exh.

“D” there is a letter dated 16.08.1962 giving a sort

of certificate that Survey No.46 known as ‘Khalwadi’

in record was cultivable and threshing of corn was

never done in that land as it was away from village

locality. So, appropriate action as per law may be

taken. At Exh.”H” there is a copy of resolution dated

25.10.1965 in which the Grampanchayat stated in

response to query from superiors that it was informed

that the Government was considering granting land from

Survey No.46 ‘Khalwadi’ to petitioner Ganpat Ashru for

cultivation. The land is 18 acres. So, the

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 6 )

Grampanchayat resolved that it might be given to two

families. It is made clear that the land was not

required by the Grampanchayat and it had no objection

if it was brought under cultivation.

5. Then there is some correspondence and

reminders. At Exh.”K” there is panchanama drawn on

06.06.1970, which shows that the petitioner Ganpat

Ashruba had been in possession of the property for

previous four years. He had no documents and

permission

of the Government. It is also stated that

there were 15 trees of Moha, which were missing at the

time of panchanama. Petitioner – Ganpat Ashroba was

informed not to cultivate the land without permission

of the Tahsil office. At Exh. “L” there is a letter

dated 09.03.1972, whereby the Tahsildar, Kannad,

called upon petitioner Ganpat Ashruba Koli to show

cause why action should not be taken against him as he

had illegally sown Bajra in Survey no.42, which was

encroachment. Similar notice for removal of

encroachment dated 07.08.1972 is produced at Exh.

“M”. Another notice for removal of the encroachment

within 3 days and for furnishing explanation was given

on 30.06.1975. Its copy is at Exh.”N”. So, it is

clear that 1970 onwards the petitioner had been in

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 7 )

possession of the land in question and he was

cultivating it.

6. At Exh.”P” there is a public notification

calling upon objections to granting land in question

to the petitioner. It was issued by the Tahsildar

Office. Its covering letter is at Exh. “O”. So, it

is clear that some of the respondents had taken steps

for regularization and some procedure was followed.

At Exh.”T” there is a letter dated 23.10.1986 sent by

Talathi

to the Tahsildar regarding information

income taken by the petitioner from the land.

about

At Exh.

“V” there is letter dated 21.01.1988 by the Collector

calling some information regarding regularization.

V.F. 7/12 extracts are produced at Exh.”X” by the

petitioner. They show that the land is ‘Khalwadi’

and the name of the petitioner was shown as cultivator

from 1970-71 onwards. It is mentioned that there is

encroachment made by the petitioner. At Exh.”Y” there

is application made by some homeless persons to the

Collector requesting that land provided for Gharkul

Yojna (scheme for providing housing to the homeless

persons) may be shifted from Block No.220 as the same

was not convenient. At Exh.”Z-1″, there is letter in

question dated 03.02.1988, which is impugned. It is

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 8 )

information by the S.D.O., Vaijapur to the Collector

that since the land was ‘Khalwadi’, as per G.R.dated

03.08.1982, the encroachment cannot be regularized and

it is this action which is challenged.

7. Learned Advocate Shri N.N. Shinde for the

petitioner has taken me through all above documents

and argued that the petitioner belongs to Nomadic

Tribe; he is landless person; he is in possession of

atleast from 1970-71 onwards as per revenue record.

The

land

Grampanchayat has passed resolution for

for cultivation to the petitioner and under
granting

the

circumstances the writ petition may be allowed.

8. Mrs. Khekale, learned A.G.P. appearing for

the respondents argued that as per copy of G.R. dated

18th January, 1996, which is marked as Exh.”R-X”, it

is Government policy that since the lands Khalwad,

Wadgi are not Gairan lands, their distribution should

not be made without prior permission of the

Government. The Government waste lands, Gairan,

Gurcharan lands are different lands and Khalwad lands

should not be included or treated as Government waste

lands, Gairan or Gurcharan lands without specific

directions by the Government. Reference was made to

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::
( 9 )

earlier G.R. dated 16/19 June, 1984. It is also made

clear that Khalwad lands are very few and they are

used by villagers for threshing. It is also stated

that such lands are useful for extension of Gavthan

and for Gharkul schemes. Said G.R. further makes it

clear that such Khalwad lands should be used only for

threshing and for drying fodder temporarily and any

encroachment thereon should be removed.

9. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.

     only     if     the
                            ig             So this Court can grant relief

                                case of the petitioner            strictly          falls
                          

within four corners of the policy of the Government as

enunciated in various Government Resolutions and

Schemes. G.R. dated 12th September, 1979, produced

at Exh. “B” speaks about Government waste lands,

Gairan lands, revenue forest lands and various lands

incharge of Forest Department. G.R. dated 18th

January, 1996, has made it very clear that the

Government did not intend to treat ‘Khalwad’ land as

Gairan or Government waste lands. So, the policy of

the Government is very clear and unless it is shown

that the Government has changed policy subsequently,

it is not possible for this Court to direct that the

encroachment by the petitioner should be regularized.

::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::

                                         (    10     )




     Whether     particular           land   should       be     allowed           to    be

     cultivated       is     a     matter     of policy.           Only       in        case




                                                                                  
     particular        policy          is    laid       down     and      there           is

     discrimination         in     implementing the policy,                   in     such




                                                         
     event     only this Court can grant necessary relief.                               In

     this     case G.R.          dated 18th January, 1996, produced by




                                                        
     the     A.G.P.        makes      it clear that         G.R.        dated           12th

September, 1979, is not applicable to ‘Khalwadi’ lands

and as such, case of the petitioner is not covered by

said G.R. dated 12th September, 1979 and he is not

entitled to get benefit of the same.

                      
     10.       In     view       of    above,     this      writ       petition          is

     dismissed.        Interim         relief, if any, granted                 earlier

     stands vacated.         Rule discharged.
      
   



                                                  [P.R. BORKAR, J.]





     snk/2009/JAN09/wp3003.90





                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:18:48 :::