1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3268 OF 1994 1 Kishan s/o Kathalu Ujgare, age: major, Occ: Agriculture, R/o Renapur, Tq.Pathri, District Parbhani. 2 Nagu s/o Raghu Ujgare, age: major; 3 Narhari s/o Ghansham, age: major; 4 Shripati Mahadu, age: major; 5 Sonaji s/o Umaji, age: major; 6 Dnyanoba s/o Dashrath Ghate, age: major; 7 Maruti s/o Dharba, age: major; 8 Narayan s/o Mahadu, age: major; 9 Kachru s/o Kerba, age: major; 10 Dnyanoba s/o Haribhau, age: major; 11 Gyana s/o Haribhau, age: major; 12 Vithoba s/o Maroba, 2 age: major; 13 Ambadas s/o Chimaji Shinde, age: major; 14 Balu s/o Mariba, age: major; 15 Dashrath s/o Kondiba, age: major; 16 Vishwanath s/o Ranoba, age: major; 17 Prakash s/o Gyana, age: major; 18 Eknath s/o Pandurang, age: major; 19 Ashruba s/o Vithoba, age: major; Nos.2 to 19: Occ: Agriculture, R/o Renapur, Tq. Pathri, District Parbhani. Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra; 2 Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Bombay. 3 Collector, Parbhani. 4 Tahsildar, Pathri, District Parbhani. 5 Shree Godavari Dudhna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Deonandra, 3 Tq.Pathri, District Parbhani, through its Managing Director – Udaysing s/o Devising Chauhan. Respondents Mr.N.N.Shinde, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.D.Rakh, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel for Respondent No.5. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 14 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala, J.): 1 Present petitioners claim that they are encroachers over land S.Nos. 50, 51 and 52, which are now G.Nos.66, 67 and 68 of village Renapur and they are cultivating the said lands since the year 1970-71. It is the case of the present petitioners that in view of the Government policy and the Resolutions, their encroachment deserves to be regularised. 2 Shri Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioners, relied on the panchanamas to substantiate his contention regarding possession of the petitioners over some portion of the lands bearing S. Nos. 50, 51 and 52. The perusal of the panchanamas shows that the possession was over some portion of the land. The panchanamas are of the year 1970 and 1977. According to Shri Shinde, in view of the Government Resolution dated 12 th September 1979, the encroachment of the petitioners deserves to be regularised, as on the relevant date, petitioners were in possession as encroachers. 4 3 The intervener Respondent claims that the land bearing G.Nos. 66 and 67 has been allotted to it by order dated 11 th September 1984, as per the provisions of The Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 and they have also paid the amount and thereafter they have been put in possession of the said land i.e. G.Nos.66 and 67. 4 Respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. The Tahsildar has filed an affidavit- in-reply thereby bringing it on record that out of 19 petitioners, 9 petitioners have been granted occupancy rights vide order dated 30 th March 1992, but these persons failed to pay the occupancy price and as such, their names were not recorded in the 7/12 extracts. Each of the 9 petitioners were allotted 60 ares of land. It is further stated by Respondents No.3 & 4 that apart from the land, that has been allotted to 9 petitioners, 2 hectare 50 ares of Government land has been allotted for extension of gaothan by the S.D.O., Selu, vide order dated 18 th February, 2000. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that now there is no Government barren land available in G.Nos.66, 67 and 68, as such the question of regularisation does not arise. This affidavit has been filed on 12 th July, 2010. 5 The contents in the affidavit of Respondent No.3 are not controverted and as such, they cannot be disbelieved. The land has been allotted to the intervener-Respondent in view of the provisions of the Rules referred supra. So also, it is on record that no Government barren land is available as on today. Even in panchanama of 1978, which is produced by the petitioners, it is observed that for the year 1977-78, there was no cultivation on the said land. 5 6 In view of the aforesaid premise, we do not see any merit in the petition. However, if the petitioners desire, they may make an application to the Government with their grievance and the Government may consider the same in accordance with law. 7 Writ Petition is dismissed with above observations, however, with no order as to costs. Pending Civil Application does not survive and stand disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/wp326894