1 wp5874.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5874 OF 2010 Dattatraya S/o Rambhau Pawar ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- Jijabai W/o Tukaram Kasare Died, Through her L.Rs. 1-a) Tukaram Baburao Kasare and others. ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.V. Gaware, Advocate for respondent nos.1-a to 1-g. Mr. D.R. Korde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 14th February, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Bhapkar for petitioner, Mr. Gaware for respondent nos. 1-a to 1-g and the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 3 and 4. The respondent no.2 though served has chosen not to appear. 2. Advocate Mr. Gaware has tendered reply affidavit of legal heirs of respondent no.1, same is accepted and taken on record. 3. Advocate Mr. Bhapkar for petitioner states that the land gut no. 342 admeasuring 1 H 52 R was received by the respondent no. 2 under Section 27 of Maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling and Holding) Act, 1961 (Hereinafter referred to as "Ceiling Act") and he 2 wp5874.10 then legally exchanged it with land gut no. 192/2 of this petitioner. The exchange was after obtaining necessary permission from the office of Collector, Ahmednagar on 30.11.2001. That permission and exchange was assailed by deceased respondent-Jijabai by filing appeal no. 3 of 2002 before the respondent no.3 Additional Commissioner and by impugned order, the respondent no.3 has found the exchange inequitable and has set it aside. According to learned Counsel, respondent no.1-Jijabai or her legal heirs have no locus to assail that transaction. He further states that reason given by the respondent no.3 totally irrelevant in this circumstances. 4. Advocate Mr. Gaware for respondent nos. 1-a to 1-g as also the learned A.G.P. are supported the impugned order. According to the learned A.G.P. as the transaction is found to the prejudice of respondent no.2 as he is receiving less land and is parting with possession of comparatively large portion, the respondent no.3 has taken proper view of the matter. Advocate Mr. Gaware argues that as the respondent no.2 does not need the land allotted to her and has transferred it, the land must revert back to the legal heirs of respondent no.1. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I find that the transaction has been approved by the Competent Authority. As per the order dated 30.11.2001 the petitioner got land gut no. 342 admeasuring 1 Acres 50 R. The competent authority has observed that inspite of the exchange, the terms and conditions applicable to alloted land shall continue to apply to exchanged land. 6. The respondent no.3 has gone by the area received in 3 wp5874.10 exchange by the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 parted with possession of land and in turn, he got land survey no. 180/2. The transaction is entered into with open eyes and was approved by the Competent Authority. The respondent no.1 has not complained of coercion or influence. The reasons given by the respondent no.1 is thereafter totally irrelevant. 7. The contention of the original owner who was declared surplus (Jijabai) land must revert back, can not be accepted. Once the land was delimited as surplus and taken by the Government in possession as per Ceiling Act, the respondent no.2 lost all her rights. The respondent no.1 or her legal heirs, therefore, have no concern with the matter thereafter. 8. In this situation, I find impugned order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the respondent no.3 Commissioner in appeal no.3 of 2002 unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the respondent no.1 is dismissed. 9. Needless to mention that if the Government notices any violation, the Government is free to take appropriate steps in the matter. The Writ Petition is partly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the facts, there shall be no order as to costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp5874.10