1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4803 /2010 (Namdeo Dahake vs. State of Maharahstra ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10 th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Advocate Borkar for petitioner and Mr. Anand Fulzele, learned AGP for respondent. The land allotted to the petitioner as Ex- serviceman for agricultural purposes, was never put to agricultural use but was constructed upon. Hence, the Government has taken it back. That order was challenged before the Additional Commissioner and on 19th July 2010 the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected. Advocate Borkar argues that land was already put to agricultural use and, therefore, only a residential house was constructed on it. Learned AGP points out that the concurrent finding shows that the land was never used for agricultural purposes. Learned counsel for petitioner has invited attention to statement made in paragraph 7 to urge that when petitioner sought 7/12 extracts or any other revenue documents, the same were refused because of the impugned order dated 25th May 2007 passed by SDO resuming the land back to Government. The land was allotted to petitioner way back 2 in October 1994. The provisions of Rule 50 (1)(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 oblige him to use that land for agricultural purposes before expiry of two years from the date of initial grant. So by October 1996 the land ought to have been put to agricultural use. The statement relied upon by petitioner and made in petition shows an effort to obtain 7/12 extracts after 2007. If petitioner has carried out agricultural operation from October 1996 till 2007 there could have been and would have been several documents with him to substantiate that fact. The petitioner was aware of the reason for resumption of land by State Government and in spite of that awareness he has not made any effort to produce any documents either before Appellate Authority or before this Court. The contention orally advanced that revenue authorities deliberately did not supply those documents to petitioner is not supported by any material. Learned counsel has also urged that residential house was built in said land to facilitate its cultivation. However as cultivation itself has not been established, I am not in position to hold that concurrent findings in this regard are either erroneous or perverse. No case is made out warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Petition is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE sahare