1 W.P.No.8076/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8076 OF 2009. Rajkuwarbai Sakarchand Raka, Aged 58 years, Occ.Household, R/o Satana, Tq. Satana, Dist.Nashik. ...Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik. 3. The Tahsildar and Surplus Lands Determiantion Tribunal, Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 4. Premchand S/o Tarachand Banwat (Marwadi), Aged 56 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon. 5. Fulabai Tarachand Banwat, Deceased. 6. Bhagachand S/o Fulchand Jain, (Deceased through his L.Rs.) Chandmal Pukharaj Jain (Bora), Aged 42 years, Occ.Agri., 2 W.P.No.8076/11 R/o Vynkatesh Temple, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 7. Arun S/o Ramsingh Gaikwad, Aged 32 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimkhede, Tq.Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 8. Sumanbai Wo Bhagwan Sonawane, Aged 55 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Zurkhade, Tq.Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 9. Gulab Chavdas Salve, Aged 40 years, Occ.Agri., 10. Laxman S/o Chavdas Salve, Aged 40 years, Occ.Agri., 11. Rafiq S/o Masum Pinjari, Aged 35 years, Occ.Agri., All R/o Wanjari, Tq.Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 12. Nababai W/o Dagadu Chavan, Aged 55 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimkhede, Tq. Dharangaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 13. Priya Premchand Banvat, Aged 26 years, Occ.Household, R/o 7, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon. 14. Priyanka Premchand Banvat, Aged 23 years, Occ.Education, R/o 7, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Nagar, Jalgaon. ... Respondents. ... Mr.V.B.Patil, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Addl.Govt. Pleader for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Smt.M.S. Jagtap, advocate for Respondent Nos.7 to 3 W.P.No.8076/11 12. Mr.M.S.Patil, advocate for Respondent Nos.4,13 and 14. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner had filed Revision before the Additional Commissioner, assailing the judgment passed by the SLDT on 27.8.1979. The said Revision is dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner is shown as an interested person by the SLDT, no notice of the said proceedings have been issued 4 W.P.No.8076/11 to the petitioner as contemplated U/s 17(2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. In view of the fact that no notice has been issued, the proceedings stand vitiated. So also the petitioner has got a share in the properties left by Tarachand, the father of the petitioner. This aspect has not been considered by the authorities. 5. Mr.Phatake, learned Addl.Govt. Pleader submits that the public notice was given though individual notice was not given to the petitioner and that would be sufficient compliance of the proceedings. 6. Mrs.Jagtap, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.7 to 12 submits that in fact, they are the allottees of the surplus land and though the surplus land is allotted to them, they have not been given possession of the said land. 7. Section 17(1) and (2) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on 5 W.P.No.8076/11 Holdings) Act, 1961 reads as under : "17. (1) For holding an enquiry under section 14, Collector shall cause public notice, in the prescribed form, to be given at convenient places in the village or villages in which the land comprised in the holding is situate, specifying in the notice the land in respect of which enquiry is to be held to ascertain the surplus land (if any) held by the person (or family unit), and calling upon all persons interested in the land to submit to the Collector their objections within a period of (fifteen deays) from the date of publication of the notice. (Where a public notice has been given as provided in this sub- section, then the holder and all person who are interested in the land shall be deemed to have been 6 W.P.No.8076/11 duly informed of the contents of such notice. If in the course of any proceedings a question arises whether a person was duly informed of the contents of the notice given in pursuance of this sub-section, the publication of the notice in the manner provided in this sub- section shall, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), be conclusive proof that he was so informed of the contents of such notice) (2) The Collector shall serve notices to the same affect on the holder, and all other persons who are known or believed to be interested in the land, calling upon them to appear before him personally or through an agent on a date and at a time and place (such date not being earlier than fifteen days after the issue of notice), to be stated in the notice." 7 W.P.No.8076/11 Perusal of sub-section (2) of Section 17, it is manifest that it is imperative on the SLDT to serve the notice of the proceedings to all the interested persons. The petitioner was shown as interested person in the proceedings but even it is admitted by the State, no personal notice was served on the petitioner. In such circumstances, the proceedings would stand vitiated. 8. In the meantime, after the judgment of the SLDT, the dispute arose regarding Block No.45 situated at Vinter, Tq.Jalgaon, which was in possession of Bhagchand. The proceedings in respect of the same has been concluded upto this Court in W.P.No.3386/1989. 9. In view of the above, I quash and set aside the order of SLDT in (Ceiling Case No. 227/78 dated 27.8.1979 and consequently the order of the Additional Commissioner and relegate the parties to the SLDT Dharangaon, who shall decide the said proceedings afresh after giving an opportunity to all the interested parties. The 8 W.P.No.8076/11 parties shall appear before the SLDT on 26.9.2011. As all the interested parties are present, it is made clear that there is no necessity to issue separate notice. The SLDT shall decide the said proceedings expeditiously within a period of six (6) months from the date of appearance. The SLDT shall also taken into consideration and shall be bound by the judgment of this Court regarding Block No.45 dated 15.10.1999, in W.P.No.3386/1989 and the rights of present Respondent No.6 as held in the said Writ Petition shall not be disturbed. 10. Rule is accordingly made absolute with aforesaid observations and directions. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp807609 9 W.P.No.8076/11