1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9746 OF 2010 Gautam V. Kamble ...Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.Amit B. Borkar and Mr. Shashi K. Pandey for Petitioner Mr. R.M. Patne -AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. N.A. Thorat, Senior Counsel i/b. Mr.R.A. Thorat & Mr.P.J. Thorat for Respondent No.6 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, learned AGP for the State and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. 2. The Petitioner, by this petition is challenging an order dated 4.11.2010 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue on an appeal filed by seven persons whose names are mentioned in the cause title on page 79 at 2 Exhibit ‘H’ of the impugned order. 3. Brief facts are as under. There were about 104 Watandars in respect of lands situated at Vanawadi, Pune. The Petitioner claims to be one of the Watandars of the said lands. Out of these 104 Watandar, few Watandars had filed application before the Collector seeking permission to sell watan lands and the Collector, accordingly, had granted permission to these applicants subject to certain terms and conditions which are mentioned in the said order. Seven members had filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Minister of Revenue, in which various contentions were raised. The Hon’ble Minister, however, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Collector who was granted permission to the applicants who filed that application and had further given direction to the Collector that those persons who had asked for permission, their lands should be demarcated and in accordance with the Government Rules, 50% of the Nazrana amount should be recovered. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that firstly, the said order dated 3 4.11.2010 is backdated. He submitted that the erstwhile Chief Minister Shri Ashokraoji Chavan resigned on 4th November, 2010 and, thereafter, the Minister in his Cabinet did not have an authority to pass any order. He submitted that in fact, the papers were not dispatched till 29th November, 2010. It was his contention, therefore, that the said order is backdated. Secondly, it is submitted that by virtue of the said impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister had in fact, granted permission to sell the entire lands of 104 Watandars and also had granted permission to the Respondent No.6 to purchase the said lands. Firstly, It was submitted that the Hon’ble Minister could not have granted permission in respect of those Watandars who had not applied for sale permission before the Collector and secondly, the permission to purchase the lands by Respondent No.6 could not have been granted by the impugned order. 5. The learned AGP for the State submits that in fact, the order was signed on 4th November, 2010 and the Hon’ble Minister Shri Ashokraoji Chavan resigned on 10th November, 2010 and not on 4th November, 2010 and, therefore, the Hon’ble Minister who signed the order had 4 the jurisdiction and authority to sign the said order. The learned AGP has produced the record. 6. I have perused the original record which contains the impugned order. It does appear that the said order was signed on 4th November, 2010. Therefore, first submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner cannot be accepted. So far as the second submission is concerned, Shri Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6 submitted that in fact, one of the power of attorney holders of the Petitioner herein had appeared before the Hon’ble Minister and he was duly heard. Secondly, it was submitted that if the operative part of the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister is seen, the said operative part of the order clearly reveals that only the order of the Collector was confirmed and no further direction of granting permission in respect of the other watandars who had not applied for permission, was granted by the Hon’ble Minister. In my view, there is some substance in the submissions made by Shri Thorat, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. Perusal of the operative part of the order, clearly reveals that the said order confirms the order passed by the 5 Collector. The Hon’ble Minister in the order further in paragraph 3, has also given a direction to the Collector to earmark and allot their share to the said persons who had applied for the permission and recover 50% Nazrana amount as per the Government Rules. This submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, also cannot be accepted. It is, therefore, clarified that the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister reveals that it is passed only in respect of those persons who had applied for permission to sell their lands. However, it is clarified that in paragraph 2 of the operative part of the order, the observation that the Collector had granted permission to the Respondent No.6 to purchase the lands,in my view, will have to be deleted since the scope of the inquiry before the Collector is only to the extent of granting permission to sell and not granting permission to purchase the lands. To that extent, the observation made in paragraph 2 is, therefore, set aside. 7. Under these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim order is vacated. (V.M. KANADE J.)