Himmat Fattu Ghodakade v. The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur And Others

2023:BHC-NAG:14853 1/3 4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.6770/2023 Himmat V the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and others ************************************************************************** Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

*************************************************************************** Mr. B.S. Dhandale, Adv for petitioner.

Mrs. S.S. Jachak, AGP for resp. nos. 1 to 3.

C ORAM : AVINASH G GHAROTE J.

DATE : 10-10-2023 Heard Mr. Dhandale, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Jachak, learned AGP for the respondents. 2.

The petition questions the order dated 25-08-23 passed by the Divisional Commissioner on the appeal filed by respondent no. 7 against the order of the Additional Collector dated 16-02-23 (pg 61) by which the respondent no. 7 was dis-qualified for having committed encroachment on forest land.

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, taking exception to the order of the learned Commissioner contends, that the encroachment on the land of Gat No.306, which is a forest land is also by the respondent no. 7, to demonstrate that he relies upon the 7/12 extract in respect of Gat No.308 which is in the name of the father of the respondent no.7, to contend that the children of Gulabrao Maroti Bhure, are still joint in mess and residence.

2/3 4 4.

The learned Commissioner has rendered a categorical finding that the respondent no.7 and his brother are separate in mess and residence, which is indicated, by the separate ration cards and house tax receipts on the basis of which, it has upset the order of the Collector. 5.

Though it is an admitted position that the brother of the respondent no.7 Purushottam Gulab Bhure is said to have made an encroachment on the land of Gat No.306 which is a Government land and was penalized for it by imposing fine there is nothing on record, to indicate that the respondent no.7 has made such encroachment. The only reason why such a presumption was drawn by the Collector is because the brother of respondent no. 7 was penalized for encroaching the land of G.No. 306. However, the Collector does not take into consideration that the position brought on record that the respondent no.7 and his brother are separate in mess and residence which is indicted from the ration card as well as the house tax entries. Merely because the separation has not been indicted in the 7/12 extract in respect of G. No. 308, that would not be a ground to draw a presumption regarding encroachment by respondent no. 7 on the land of G.No. 306.

6.

In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the order impugned in this petition. The petition is dismissed. No costs.

3/3 4 JUDGE Deshmukh