1 wp2959.11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2959 OF 2011 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH APRIL, 2011 Heard Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni for petitioner and the learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. 2. Advocate Mrs. Kulkarni fairly points out that the Second Appeal in a suit simplicitor for injunction is already dismissed. She however states that the question about validity of declaration of suit lands as Madatmash (community service inam) is pending at the instance of petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 3. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Deputy Collector, Beed has on 02.05.1998 found land 2 wp2959.11 survey no. 436(2) Mauje Ambejogai as Muntakhab no. 1857 of 1349 Fasli and Madatmash. The said finding is due to decision dated 13.08.1990 in Writ Petition no. 2823/1981 of this bench. It is also recorded that occupancy rights were already settled in favour of Shankar Motiram Shinde. The said Shankar is respondent no.4 in present Writ Petition. Finding that he was in possession on 01.07.1960 is not shown to be perverse. 4. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench this Court reported at "1967 B.C.I. (0) 116"- Niranjanshing V/s Bhagatrai and another, particularly paragraph nos. 1 to 7, to urge that no occupancy right could have been conferred upon Shankar. 5. Facts in reported judgment show that lands vested in State Government on 20.07.1995 and the opponent there was found in possession in 1956, when he leased out the same to petitioner. The Division Bench noticed that he had no title, interest on lands and hence, he could not have created any tenancy in respect of those lands. Said petitioner therefore could not have been regarded as tenant on 01.07.1960. Petitioner before this Court was not party before S.D.O. and he appeared only before Divisional Commissioner with contention that land is service-inam. But he failed to substantiate it and 3 wp2959.11 respondent no.1 has also noted the above judgment of High Court dated 13.08.1990. 6. The facts here are already settled in civil litigation and challenge to basic document is reported to be pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Said document is Kaulnama dated 22.09.1958 by which father of the respondent no.4 came to be inducted as tenant to cultivate. Hence, I find said judgment not applicable in the present situation. Petitioner can always make his grievance depending upon adjudication of dispute by the Hon'ble Apex Court. With that liberty to the present petitioner, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp2959 .11