1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2377 OF 2009 1) Balwant Gupalrao Khandekar and others - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra and others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.GR Syed,Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SK Kadam, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3; Mr.HV Patil, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 5 to 12. ----- CORAM : S.B.DESHMUKH & K.U.CHANDIWAL,JJ. DATE : 25th August, 2010. PER COURT : 1) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) The petitioners, who claim to be agriculturists, approached to this Court with following prayers : “(A) By issuing appropriate writ or directions in like nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be direct 2 the respondent nos.2 and 3 to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioner at the earliest; (B) By issuing appropriate writ or directions in like nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be direct the respondent nos. 1 to 3 to make necessary inquiry in the matter and punish the wrongdoers; (C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be stay the disbursement of amount of financial aid; (D) Ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (C) may kindly be granted in favour of petitioners.” 3) This petition was filed by the petitioners on 16th April, 2009. The principal prayer made in this petition, and as we have recorded in foregoing paragraphs is, directions against respondents to consider and decide the representation made by the petitioners at the earliest point of time. 4) This petition was before this Court for admission on 21st April, 2009, when this Court, after hearing the counsel for the petitioners, issued notices to the respondents, which were accepted by learned AGP for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Notices of Respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were made returnable on 29th June, 2009. 3 5) The learned Counsel for the petitioners points out the order passed by this Court on 11th February, 2010, whereby, this Court has directed the Respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the representations of the petitioners irrespective of the pendency of this petition and submit compliance report before the next date, i.e. 17th June, 2010. This Court has made it clear that the pendency of this writ petition shall not be impediment in the way of the Respondent nos.2 and 3 while considering and deciding the representation of the petitioners and submission of the report thereof to this Court. 6) An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 2 and 3, it is affirmed on 24th June, 2010 by Mr. Mahesh s/o Tulshiram Sudhalkar, Tahsildar, Degloor, District Nanded. 7) In compliance of the order dated 11th February, 2010, a report has been submitted. The said report pertains to around 220 beneficiaries/farmers, who are eligible to receive the compensation. The said report is signed by Talathi and Agriculture Supervisor. The said report is pointed out to us by learned AGP. In the said report it is mentioned that the earlier list of beneficiaries was of 235 4 farmers/agriculturists, however, during the course of re-survey, no lands were found in the names of around 15 agriculturists and, therefore, an amount of Rs.38,500/- has been reduced. In another group of agriculturists, ten agriculturists were found to have lesser land than the prescribed limit, for which, an amount of Rs.6,100/- has been reduced. This report further certifies that list of the beneficiaries from Sr.Nos.1 to 220, is in accordance with the 7/12 extracts and it has been verified by the authorities. 8) The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the there was illegality in finalizing the list of beneficiaries prepared by the authorities and if the same is acted upon and amount is disbursed, then it would be loss to the public exchequer and, therefore, the report made in this behalf need not be considered and an inquiry, as claimed by the petitioners, in respect of payment of subsidy to the ineligible farmers/agriculturists, needs to be conducted. 9) We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as the report submitted by the respondents/authorities. 5 10) Tahsildar is an authority, appointed under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Even otherwise, he functions as an Executive Magistrate within the jurisdiction of tehsil concerned. He is a responsible Government officer, entrusted with the duties/functions in accordance with the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Holding of a land by a particular person for agriculture purpose is a matter governed and dealt with by the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Eligibility for grant of subsidy/compensation, is a matter of policy to be determined by the State Government. In the present case, policy decision has been taken and in the course of implementing the said policy decision, the petitioners found that some ineligible persons have enjoyed the benefits. On account of the order passed by this Court on 11th February, 2010 an inquiry was conducted and report is submitted, which is elaborate and objection pertaining to individual case of the person, who are figured in the list of the report from Sr.Nos.1 to 220 is considered. Prima facie, this report, which is signed by the Talathi and Agriculture Supervisor, endorsed by the Tahsildar, is acceptable to us. The question of facts, which the counsel for the petitioner, is trying to raise before this Court, in our opinion, cannot be gone into under Article 226 of 6 the Constitution. We are satisfied with the report submitted and in our view, nothing remains to be adjudicate in this writ petition. 11) In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed without any order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (S.B.DESHMUKH) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/