1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4186 OF 2009 Ashruba S/o.Wamanrao Chavan Age-65 years, Occu-Agriculturist, R/o.Wanjola, Tq.Mantha, Dist. Jalna PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary Rehabilitation Department Government of Maharashtra Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. Deputy Commissioner (Rehabilitation) Aurangabad, Division : Aurangabad. 3. District Rehabilitation Officer, Jalna, Dist. Jalna 4. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Mantha, Dist. Jalna 5. The Gramsevak, Village Grampanchayat, Vanjola, Tq. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge, learned AGP for respondents (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 18/08/2009 2 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner challenges the allotment to plot no.106 admeasuring 370 Sq.Mt. to the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Scheme. According to the petitioner, the size of his family consists of 7 persons and therefore under the relevant rules he is entitled for a larger piece of land than the plot area of 370 Sq. Mts. allotted to him. It appears that on the basis of the complaint/representation of the petitioner, certain inquiry came to be conducted by the Tahsildar who submit his report expressing therein that the petitioner was entitled for a larger piece of plot as his family consists of 7 persons. 2. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In their affidavit in reply, it is stated at para no.4 of the reply that the list of the persons came to be prepared for rehabilitation and in the said list, the name of the petitioner is appeared at Sr.No.39, and against his name the members in his family are shown as 3. It is stated that the petitioner therefore is not entitled for allotment of a larger piece of plot. It is further stated that the list was prepared in the year 1998 and the size of the plot would be determined or would be dependent upon the size of the family at the time of acquisition. In any event, the size of the plot would be dependent upon the family members shown in the list which is of the year 1998. The so called 7 members in the family comprises of the daughter in law of the petitioner and the 3 children of the son and daughter in law of the petitioner. Obviously the 3 aforesaid persons were not members of the family of the petitioner when the list came to be prepared. Even otherwise the footnote appended to the rules on which reliance is placed indicates that family would include aged parents, sons, unmarried daughters or sisters provided the aforesaid persons are dependent on the person who is deprived on his land. In the present petition, details about the dependency is not shown. No efforts have been taken in the petition to point out as to how other persons in the family would fall within the definition of family as is provided under the relevant rules. Even otherwise since they were not members of the family of the petitioner when the list was drawn, the petitioner was not entitled for a larger piece of land. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the petition and the petition is therefore summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) кhs/AUGUST 2009/wp4186-09