IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PUNE
DIVISION
AT PUNE
REVISION NO.______ OF 2007
1. Dattatray Vithal Pandit
since deceased through his legal heirs
1-a) Surekha Dattatray Pandit
r/o as above
1-b) Sou. Vaishali Vishal Joshi
r/o as above
1-c) Tilottama Dattatray Pandit
r/o as above
1-d) Nikhil Dattatray Pandit
r/o as above
1-e) Nilesh Dattatray Pandit
r/o as above
Nos. 1-c,d and e are minors represented
By mother i.e. Surekha Dattatray Pandit
Notice to be served on 1-a for all revision
Applicants. ….. Revision
Applicants
Versus
1. Ramu Akoba Hanchnale
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
1-a) Bandu Akoba Hanchnale
r/o Nandgao, Tal- Karvir
District Kolhapur.
1-b) Pandurang Akoba Hanchnale
r/o as above
2. Dhondiram Babu Patil
(Since deceased through his legal heirs)
2-a) Smt.Karubai Dhondiram Patil
2
2-b) Sou.Bharati Sanjay Patil
2-c) Shri Balwant Dhondiram Patil
All residents on Bachani, Tal. Karvir,
District Kolhapur.
3. The Collector and Resettlement Officer,
Kolhapur.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
No.10 Kolhapur, District Kolhapur
……Revision-Opponents
The Revision under Section 357 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 against the Acquisition Award No.
LQN /10/SR/32/83 declared in March, 1988 by Special Land
Acquisition Officer No.10, Kolhapur. Revision as per order
dated 06.01.2004 of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ
Petition No.758 of 1994.
The Revision applicants most respectfully submits as under :-
1. Land in dispute :- The Land Gat No.5 admeasuring 5 Hector
27 Ares situated at Nandgaon, Tal. Karvir, District. Kolhapur out of
which the land admeasuring 1 Hector 62 Ares alleged acquisition is
the land in dispute.
2. Revision applicants are owners of land Gat No.5 along with other
lands situated at Nandgaon, Taluka-Karvir, District-Kolhapur. The
revisionists state that the 7/12 extract show that from 1984-85
onwards the revisionists are in possession of the land as owner
thereof. Shri Ramchandra Akoba Hanchnale and Pandurang Akoba
Hanchnale residents of Nandgaon were claiming tenancy rights over
the land in question. Proceedings between them were initiated by the
Additional Tahsildar and L.T. Karvir under section 32 (F) B.T. and
A.L. Act, 1948. The proceedings were initiated on 02.03.1977.
3. By an order dated 30.11.1979 the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T
Karvir was pleased to reject the application made by Shri Akoba
Hanchnale by holding that they are not tenants of said lands and they
3
are not entitled to purchase the same. The Tenancy Appeal No. 55 of
1984 filed by said Hanchnale before the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Karvir Division, Kolhapur came to be dismissed on 17.06.1983.
Revision Application M.R.T.K.P 136 of 1983 filed by said
Hanchnale before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal came to be
dismissed on 30th November, 1986 and order of the Trial Court
declaring that said Hanchnales are not entitled to purchase the said
land was confirmed.
4. The revisionists state that said Hanchnales have also filed Writ
Petition No. 2109 of 1985 which is pending in this Hon’ble Court.
The revisionists state that said Hanchnales have also filed a suit
bearing No. 899 of 1976 for perpetual injunction on the averments
that they are in possession of the suit land. The revisionists state that
in the said suit application for interim injunction was made by said
Hanchnales came to be dismissed by order dated 23.02.1984. It is
held in the said order that the revisionists herein are in possession of
the suit lands. The said suit is still pending.
5. The revisionists state that inspite of aforesaid proceedings opponent
No.4 has acquired the land bearing Gat No.5 Area 1 Hector 62 Ares
by treating the said lands as of Hanchnales. The revisionists state
that they have not received notices under Section 4 of the Act and
therefore, there was no question of filing objections and point out to
the authorities that the question of acquisition is illegal. The
revisionists state that it appears on 07.07.1983 Notification under
section 4 of the Act came to be published on 30 th June, 1986.
Notification under Section 6 came to be published and notice under
Section 9(3) of the Act came to be issued. It appears that thereafter
the award is declared in the month of March, 1988. However, there
is no intimation of the Award to the revisionists herein as required
under section 12(2) of the said Act.
4
6. The revisionists state that the said award is declared on the basis of
presuming that the said Hanchnales are persons in possession and
owners thereof and the award shows that Akoba Kashappa
Hanchnale is to be paid compensation for land Gat No.5 area 1
Hector 62 Ares to the tune of Rs.14,500/- plus solatium plus interest,
etc.
7. The revisionists submit that as mentioned above as there was no
notice to the revisionists herein, under Section 4 of the Act of
Section 12(2) of the Act they were not aware of about the declaration
of the award by the authorities and were shocked and surprised when
on 17.12.1993 representative of the Government came to the land
and effected Kabje Patti pancahnama mentioned therein that land in
question is taken in possession from the revisionists herein and name
of opponent No.3 herein is recorded to the suit land vide Mutation
Entry No.954.
8. Revisionists submit that in pursuance of the order dated 18.08.1994
the revisionists till date are cultivating their land. The revisionists
further submit that however, without notice to revisionists opponent
Nos.3 and 4 have allotted the said acquired land to one Krishnaji
Vithal Gulwani and they have caused entry in 7/12 extracts in
respect of said land for 1 Hector 62 Ares on 12.06.1988. The
revisionists submit that from the said 7/12 extract name of Krishnaji
Vithal Gulwani has shown to be entered by utatio entry No.1276.
The revisionists further submit that from the said 7/12 extract is also
evidently clear that the said revisionists are cultivating the land till
date. Revisionists further submit that on or about 19.09.1998 police
personnel from Ispurli Police Station had arrived at revisionists plot
along with Krishnaji Vithal Gulwani for the possession of the said
land of 1 Hector 62 Ares. The revisionists further submit that only
because status quo order passed o 18.08.1994 was shown to the said
personnel the possession of the revisionists submit that entry which
has been caused in 7/12 extract by mutation entry No.1276 is bad in
5
law, illegal and violative of order passed by the Hon’ble Court on
18.08.1994. The revisionists further submit that possession was
retained with the revisionists only.
9. The revisionists submit that after the said entry caused by the
opponent Nos.3 and 4 in favour of Krishnaji Vithal Gulwani on
12.06.1998 for about 2 years opponent Nos.3 and 4 did not take any
action and revisionists continued to cultivate their land which is
subject matter of the above revision. However the revisionists submit
that the opponent Nos.3 and 4 inspite of being aware of the order
dated 18.08.1994 without notice to the revisionists caused entry in
favour of Dhondiram Babu Patil for 1 Hector 63 Ares in the land
belonging to the revisionists bearing Gat No.5 of village Nandgaon,
Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur vide Mtation Entry No. 1424 dated
10.05.2000 which deserves to be quashed and set aside. The
revisionists submit that inspite of interim order of status quo passed
by Hon’ble Court on 18.08.1994 the opponent Nos.3 and 4 have
again after period of 2 years caused entry in favour of Dhondiram
Babu Patil in respect of 1 Hector 62 Ares from bearing Gat No.5
totally admeasuring 5 Hector 27 Ares which is subject matter of the
above revision. The Revisionists submit that till this date revisionists
are continuously cultivating the above land which is evident from the
7/12 extract. Dhondiram Patil instituted, injunction Suit No. Rcs No.
349 of 2001 in the Civil Court, Kolhapur against the revisionists
which is pending. In this suit Dhondiram Patil is restrained from
disturbing possession of revisionists.
10.The revisionists state that proceedings as initiated and completed by
the opponent Nos.3 and 4 are illegal baseless, ultra vires and
malafide on the following amongst other grounds which are taken
without prejudice to each other.
GROUNDS
6
i) The Acquisition is infructuous as regards section 2 subsection 8
sub clause b of the Maharashtra project affected person
rehabilitation act of 1989 wherein it is specifically stated that
those lands wherein a water well is situated cannot be acquired
and in the present matter all the 7/12 extracts reflect the entries of
well being existing in the said lands.
ii) The acquisition proceedings are without notice to the petitioners
under Section 4 of the Act, consequently the award declared is
liable to be quashed and set aside.
iii) The revisionists state that they are in possession of suit land as
owners thereof and acquisition proceedings are completed behind
their back; therefore, they are vitiated and hence illegal and are
liable to be quashed and set aside.
iv) The revisionists are deprived of their properties without due
process of law and provisions contained in the Act and hence
there is violation of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India and
thus they are liable to be quashed and set aside.
v) The revisionists state that as per the provisions of the
Resettlement Act and Acquisition Act, notice to the land owners
is a must. However, in the present case, the revisionists have not
been called upon to show cause and the acquisition was
completed behind the back of the revisionists. Hence these
proceedings are illegal, baseless, malafide, ultra vires and
deserves to quashed and set aside.
vi) The revisionists state that in tenancy proceedings it has been held
that Hanchnales are not tenants of the suit land. Therefore, the
acquisition proceedings completed on the basis that Hanchnales
are persons to whom notices are issued is bad in law, baseless,
7
illegal and without application of mind and therefore, the
acquisition proceedings are liable to be quashed and set aside.
vii) The revisionists state that in RCS No. 899 of1976 it has been held
that said Hanchnales are not in possession and the revisionists
herein are in possession and the acquisition authorities ought to
have given notice to the revisionists about said acquisition
proceedings. The revisionists submit that under the Resettlement
Act as per Section 16 read with Schedule A para II or the
Resettlement Act, provision is made as to how much land could
be acquired i.e. slab system. If the holding of the land owner isles
than 9 hectare then the land cannot be acquired. If the holding of
the land owner is between 8 acres to 12 acres then only 2A can be
acquired. Further slab is provided for holding exceeding 12
Acres. In the present case, 1 Hector 62 Ares (4 Acres 2 Gunthas)
of land is acquired by the opponent Nos.3 and 4by treating the
said land of Hanchnales. The revisionists submit that acquisition
proceedings are totally illegal, baseless, malafide, ultra vires and
contrary to the provisions of law.
viii) The revisionists being persons in possession and owners of the
land holdings, the acquisition proceedings are bad in law.
ix) The revisionists submit that entire proceedings are vitiated and
hence liable to be quashed and set aside.
11.The revisionists state that they have not filed any application/ appeal
in the Supreme Court or any other Court so far as thepresent subject
matter is concerned.
12.The revisionists submit that the revisionists were notparties to the
proceedings. The award passed is on March, 1988. However, the
revisionists are not informed as required under Section 12(2) of the
Act. The revisionists at first came to know about the award in the
8
month of December,1993 when the opponent Nos.3 and 4’s
representative came to take possession of the land on 17.12.1993.
13.The revisionists further submit that even though reference ismade on
17.12.1993, possession of the land is not taken. The revisionists are
in actual possession of suit land. The suit land is not allotted to
anybody. Hence, the possession of the lands belonging to the
revisionists.
14.The revisionists crave leave to alter, amend or delete any of the
aforesaid grounds :-
The revisionists therefore, pray that :-
a) Proceedings acquiring initiated in respect of land Gat No.5 are 1
Hector 62 Are of village Nandgaon, Taluka Karvir, District
Kolhapur and award dated March,1988 be quashed and set aside;
b) Costs of revision be granted;
c) For such other relief / reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and
proper be granted.
Pune
Dated: ____________
Advocate for Revisionists
