1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1832 of 2009 (Municipal Council, Khamgaon v. Shri Shivajirao Wamanrao Deshmukh) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri H.S. Warulkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.V. Manohar, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri B.M. Lonare, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 26 th August, 2010 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. This petition challenges the order dated 26-11-2008 passed by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Revenue setting aside by the order passed on 26-11-1999 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon, and confirming the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner, Buldana, on 8-11-2004 and 30-12-2006 respectively. The controversy, which was involved before the Hon’ble Minister in revision preferred under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, was regarding surrender of the portion of land from survey No.110 of Khamgaon. The revision was preferred by respondent No.1 herein, who claimed to be the 2 owner of plot Nos.29 and 30. According to respondent No.1, he was the owner of the total land admeasuring 27 acres and 4 gunthas from survey No.110. Out of this land, 13 acres and 3 gunthas of land was sold to Samata Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha on 11-5-1978 and the remaining land admeasuring 14 acres and 1 guntha was with respondent No.1. The dispute was about surrender of 10% of the land and the claim of respondent No.1 was that while deciding the question of surrender, the entire land consisting of 27 acres and 4 gunthas from survey No.110 should have been taken into consideration along with the land which was already surrendered to Samata Sahakari Gruhanirman Sanstha. By the impugned order, the Hon’ble Minister has held that the Competent Authority to determine the question under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code was the Additional Collector or the Collector and, therefore, the matter will have to be decided by the Additional Collector or the Collector and not by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Competent Authority is directed to take into consideration all the aspects of the matter including the calculation of the area out of total 27 acres and 4 gunthas of land from survey No.110 for the purpose of surrender. The grievance of the petitioner-Municipal Council is that the order dated 26-11-1999 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer without providing any opportunity of hearing to them. By order dated 26-11-1999, in fact the Sub-Divisional Officer has granted permission to divide plot Nos.29 and 30 and the said permission has nothing to do with the 3 question of surrender of land by respondent No.1. As a matter of fact, the order dated 26-11-1999 has been set aside by the impugned order and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that it was not heard, does not survive. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Minister has directed that the proceedings are required to be taken up by the Additional Collector or the Collector – the Competent Authority under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – and the petitioner-Municipal Council obviously shall have an opportunity of being heard in the matter. Hence, no grievance can be made in respect of the order passed by the Hon’ble Minister, which is impugned in the present petition. In the result, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Needless to say that the Competent Authority shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-Municipal Council. Judge pdl