1 wp906-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.906 OF 2010 Smt.Haunsabai A. Tupe (deceased) through her legal heirs & Ors .. Petitioners versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Sandeep Pathak i/by S.B.Deshmukh for the petitioners. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Y.K.Tiwari with Mr.Dipak Deshmukh i/by K.P.Tiwari & Co for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th August 2011. P.C.: . Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court in so far as the property bearing old Survey No.83/2 construing new Gat No.217 is concerned. From that property, an area of 56.25 Are belongs to the predecessor in title of the petitioner. There is another property Survey No.65/3 bearing Gat No.96 and that belongs to respondent No.4-Kanhu Genu Tupe. Survey No.65/3 bearing Gat No.96 is acquired for the purpose of Pawna Project and it was 2 wp906-10.doc submerged land and Award has been made on 27th February 1973. The property is in possession of the Government and compensation is given to Kahnu Genu Tupe, i.e., respondent No.4. However, the Government name has not been entered in the revenue records. Therefore, as a result of the Consolidation Scheme, the Consolidation Officer alloted Survey No.83/2 belonging to the petitioner, to said Kanhu Tupe (respondent No.4) and Survey No. 65/3 which was a submerged land, was given to the petitioner. The petitioner has been constantly making grievance that what has been alloted to him is submerged land and in any event it is not the property of said Kanhu Tupe, but, belongs to the Government absolutely. Such a land is incapable of cultivation now, as it is acquired for Pawna Project. 2 Although grievance may have been made during the course of the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Land Record, that the respondent No.4 Kanhu Genu Tupe could not have been alloted petitioner’s land, it is clarified now that the Consolidation Scheme to the extent, that the land was given to Kanhu Tupe is not challenged. In other words, the petitioner does not seek to disturb the allotment 3 wp906-10.doc made in favour of the respondent No.4-Kanhu Genu Tupe and the alienation by him to subsequent parties including the purchaser like respondent No.3. Therefore, he does not seek to affect the rights of both, respondent Nos.3 and 4. 3 However, considering the fact that the petitioners are not responsible for any lapses of Government, in not correcting the revenue entries and an allotment being made to them of a land which stood submerged, even after all these years and at this belated stage, the State should consider sympathetically the request to allot them some other land. It is stated that in peculiar facts in this case, this request be considered as the petitioners have been rendered landless and cultivation of agricultural land is their only source of income. 4 Since the petitioners do not dispute the allotment of the land bearing Survey No.83/2 to respondent No.4, its subsequent alienation in favour of the respondent No.3, that part of the order of the Deputy Director of Land Record is upheld and stands confirmed. In the light of this statement made by Mr.Anturkar, 4 wp906-10.doc nothing survives in this writ petition as far as that land is concerned. However, the respondents and particularly the Competent Authority of the State of Maharashtra should consider the request of the petitioners for allotment of some suitable land in the vicinity to them by treating this writ petition and all its annexures as representation made to the Competent Authority and that request be considered as expeditiously as possible and a decision thereon be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is disposed of in these terms. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J) 5 wp906-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1735 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.906 OF 2010 Smt.Haunsabai A. Tupe (deceased) through legal heirs & Ors .. Applicants versus State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents Mr.A.V.Anturkar with Mr.Sandeep Pathak i/by S.B.Deshmukh for the applicants. Ms.P.S.Cardozo, A.G.P for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Y.K.Tiwari with Mr.Dipak Deshmukh i/by K.P.Tiwari & Co for respondent No.3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 12th August 2011. P.C.: . Heard both sides. Civil Application is allowed. Amendment are permitted to be carried out forthwith. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)