Babarao Deorao Pandagale, Power Of Attorney Shri. Jagdeorao S/O Babarao Pandagale v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. S.D.O. Pusad

1 caw793.2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION NO.793 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6910/2015 Babarao S/o Deorao Pandagale ..VS.. State of Maharashtra & Oth. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Alok Upasani, Advocate for the petitioner Ms Geeta Tiwari, A.G.P. or the respondent No.1 Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for respondent Nos.9, 10(i) to 10(iii) CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 18/06/2019 Heard Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for the respondent Nos.9, 10(i) to 10(iii), Shri Upasani, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms Geeta Tiwari, AGP for respondent No.1.

2] Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 03/10/2017, the Collector, Yavatmal has submitted report dated 5th January/5th February, 2018. This report states that according to the revenue records, field Survey No. 22 (old) i.e. Gat No. 285 and 288 (new) were owned by Babarao Pandagale (present petitioner) and Panchafulabai Maske, and on 03/05/1991, 2 Hector 07 Are agricultural land and 0 Hector 44 Are pot kharab land i.e. 2 Hector 51 Are land out of survey No. 285 and 1 Hector 04 Are land out of survey No. 288 was declared surplus in Ceiling Case No.11/60A(6)/1990-1991 and was allotted to Narayan S/o Malhari Fating i.e.

2 caw793.2016 respondent No.10, and Tukaram S/o Masaji Khokale exchanged the land allotted to him with Shivaji S/o Laxman Londhe i.e. respondent No.9. According to the report given by the Collector, respondent No.10 got 2 Hector 51 Are land and as per the exchange with Tukaram S/o Masaji Khokale, the respondent No.9 is having 2 Hector 65 Are land. The claim of the respondent Nos.9 & 10 that they are in possession of the lands allotted to them is supported by the 7/12 extract placed on record alongwith this civil aplication.

3] Though the petitioner claims that being owner he had been in possession of the entire land, the petitioner has not placed any evidence on record to show that the report of the Collector regarding allotment of land, cannot be accepted.

4] Hence, the interim order granted by this Court on 22/12/2015 is modified/clarified as follows: Except for the land allotted to the respondent No.10 on 03/05/1991, and the land which is in possession of respondent No.9 after the exchange with Tukaram S/o Masaji Khokale, the possession of the petitioner over the remaining land shall stand protected. Civil application is allowed accordingly. In the circumstances the parties to bear their own costs. (Z.A.HAQ, J.) Namrata