1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8103 OF 2010 CHANDU KISAN BADAKH VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER NASHIK DIVN NASHIK AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kakade Amol N . And M S Taur AGP for Respondents 1 to 3: Mrs. AV Gondhalekar Advocate for Respondents 4 to 8: Mr.CK Shinde. ***** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 24th NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard extensively and finally. 2) Writ Petitioner claims to quash and set aside the order dated 30th April, 2010 recorded by Additional Commissioner, Nasik in Appeal No. 20/2008 as also the order dated 31.12.2007 recorded by Additional Collector, Aurangabad in Remand Appeal No.170/2007. 3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, or for that purpose his father, was an agriculture labour in the disputed property, and consequently he fits within the bracket of entitlement of the 2 Government Scheme. He submits that the Respondent No.4 could not be branded to be an agriculture labour as he, at the material time, was in employment and for that purpose, learned Counsel has placed reliance to the orders recorded on 11.2.1994 in Revision (IDA) No.5/1979 between one M/s SH Khatod and Sons and Aaba Tukaram Gaikwad. 4) Having read the order of the learned Additional Commissioner, it is indicated that exhaustive hearing was given to the writ petitioner, record was minutely browsed and it was found that son of the writ petitioner has land to the extent of 41 R. from Gut No.117/1, he cannot be put in the term of “landless agriculturist”. The Authorities have, in the category of Ex-serviceman, since there were more than one applicants, got it decided by draw system from the persons present. This was in tune with Section 27(6) of the Act. The authority has also considered whether father of the writ petitioner was an agriculture labour at the disputed land. The officers have verified the Government record, there could not be possession of the petitioner or his father after 1969. The land was in possession of the Government as it was declared surplus, revenue record, to which learned counsel has given reference, flow of 3 1999, 2000, 2001. However, that remotely will be applicable to be coined . 5) No error in the orders under challenge. Consequently, writ petition lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/