(1) WP. 505.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 505 OF 2010 Shaikh Ayub Sk. Kadu PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 6TH JULY, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. The Petition has been filed contending that the petitioner's encroachment on gairan land gat no. 27 of Ranjangaon Danda, Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad should be regularized. The petitioner contends that he has been occupying that land prior to 1991 and was cultivating the land to the extent of 2 H since 1978. The petitioner has sought to invoke the Government's policy of 1991, whereby encroachments on gairan lands were to be regularized. The petitioner had submitted his representation in July, 2002 to the State for regularization of his (2) WP. 505.2010 occupation. However, since no steps were taken by the State, he filed a Writ Petition bearing no. 2949 of 2002 in this Court. This Court directed the State to consider the representation within a stipulated period and the Petition was disposed of. However, as the representation was not decided within the period stipulated by this Court, a Contempt Petition was filed by the petitioner bearing Contempt Petition no.263 of 2008. The Contempt Petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 2.12.2009 as the representation of the petitioner was decided. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner has been rejected and hence the present Petition. 2. The State has filed an affidavit indicating that the representation was rejected as the petitioner has not produced any document indicating his possession over the aforesaid land prior to 14th April, 1990. No documentary evidence regarding cultivation of the land during the period from 1.4.1978 to 1991 was produced and hence the representation of the petitioner for regularization of his encroachment was rejected. (3) WP. 505.2010 3. We have perused the record and we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Collector. The petitioner cannot rely on merely the ipse dixit of the Tahsildar where the Tahsildar in his report made in 2006 has stated that the petitioner was cultivating the land from 1978. There is no material in his report to indicate how he arrived at this conclusion. It is apparent that he merely relied on the word of the petitioner. The Collector has rightly disbelieved the report. Petition rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp