2807cao1611.10.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION (O) NO.1611 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1416 OF 2010 Waman s/o Tomdeo Nakade VERSUS Shri Sudam Govinda Dhote and others ................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................ Shri S.R.Deshpande, Counsel for the Applicant. Shri Nitin Vyawahare, Counsel for the Respondent nos.1 to 3, 6 and 7. Shri A.G.Mujumdar, AGP for the Respondent Nos.4 and 5. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 28. JULY, 2011. This application is for condonation of 87 days delay caused in filing review application. The grievance of the applicant is that he was not joined as a party to the proceedings, in which the order impugned in Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010 was passed. He further submits that he was also not a party in Writ Petition .....2/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 2 No.1416 of 2010. It is the contention of the applicant that the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010 passed by this Court, has affected his rights and on 19.11.2010, the applicant came to know of the dismissal of this writ petition. He thereafter, took inspection and obtained the copy of judgment and order dated 11.8.2010 passed by this Court, dismissing the said writ petition and thereafter, this review petition has been filed. The application is opposed by the respondents. For the reasons stated in the application, I am satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condonation of delay. Hence, the delay caused is condoned. The application stands disposed of. MCA ST.NO.21327 OF 2010 MCA St.No.21327 of 2010 for review .....3/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 3 is taken up for admission, by consent of the learned Counsels appearing for the parties. Heard Shri S.R.Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, Shri Nitin Vyawahare, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and Shri A.G.Mujumdar, the learned AGP appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5. This application seeks review of the judgment and order dated 11.8.2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010. In the said writ petition the challenge was to the order dated 24.6.1994 passed by the Tahsildar and SLDT (Surplus Land Determination Tribunal), Armori and the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Ceiling Appeal No.ALC/A-2/2008. .....4/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 4 By an order dated 22.11.1990, the SLDT declared the Survey No.411/3 as surplus in the proceedings of return filed under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling & Holdings) Act, 1961 (“Ceiling Act”), filed by the father of the petitioner Shri Tomdeo Nakade. The said order was the subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal No.ALC.A.5 of 91 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the SLDT, Armori, with a direction not to deal with Khasra No.411/3 as surplus until and unless it is required as per the rules framed under the Ceiling Act. On remand of the matter, the Tahsildar/SLDT, Armori, conducted an enquiry, in which it was held that Khasra No.411/3 admeasuring 5.54 Acres was transferred by the land holders on .....5/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 5 28.4.1997 to the purchasers namely Wasudeo Tulshiram Thakre and Murari Vistari Meshram (respondent nos.3 and 4) respectively in the Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010 by registered sale deed. Hence, the owner of the land, Shri Tomdeo Nakade, was given one more chance to give choice in Form No.VII in exchange of Khasra No.411/3. But he failed to give his choice and hence, the SLDT proceeded to deal with the area of 3.70 Acres of Paddy Land (converted 5.55) out Khasra No.900 (Old Nos.584, 587, 589, 590) of Village Kondala, Tahsil Desaiganj in Form No.VIII. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010, were the allottees of surplus land Khasra No.411/3 having area of 5.54 Acres of land, declared by an order dated 24.6.1994 passed by the SLDT, Armori. Since the land Khasra No.411/3 was deleted from the surplus land holding of Shri .....6/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 6 Tomdeo Nakade, the petitioners who were the allottees of said Survey Number, challenged the order dated 24.6.1994 passed by the SLDT and order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. This Court dismissed the said writ petition, holding that the purchasers were entitled to retain the property purchased by them and the petitioner in Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010 can claim equivalent area out of land taken in possession by the ceiling authorities after issuing the order of delimitation. It was recorded in the said judgment that an area to the extent of 3.70 Hectare out of land Bearing Survey No.900 has been declared as surplus and the order in respect of delimitation was already passed. The applicant claims to be the legal representative of Shri Tomdeo Nakade, who had presented return filed under .....7/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 7 Section 12 of the Ceiling Act. He claims that there was a partition in property in question on 26.6.1970 in which the land in question had fallen to the share of the applicant. He submits that through-out the proceedings he was not party and hence, his land has been taken away without issuing notice to him. Initial proceedings were on the basis of return filed under Section 12 of the Ceiling Act, by the father of the petitioner. The petitioner claims that at that time he was minor. The father of the petitioner had put forth a plea that there was a partition in the family on 26.6.1970. However, it has not been accepted by the authorities. By an order dated 24.6.1994, the land in question has been delimited as surplus. The said order was neither challenged by the father of the applicant nor by the applicant. The applicant is .....8/- 2807cao1611.10.odt 8 bound by the orders in these proceedings being legal representative of Shri Tomdeo Nakade. The Writ Petition No.1416 of 2010 was not filed by the father of the petitioner, but it was filed by persons who were allotted the land Survey No.411/3. The petitioner has, therefore, no locus to file this review application. The same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-