:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2005 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.R.S.Apte i/by.Vaibhav Patankar for the petitioners. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for the state. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 21ST FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Mr.Apte appearing for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State. 2. The petitioners predecessor in title was allotted a piece of land by the Government. The allotment was for a specific purpose with certain conditions. On 27.3.2007 the allotment was made and the condition was that within a period of two years, the Allotee must bring the :2: :2: :2: land under cultivation and the same should not be left unused and uncultivated. 3. The Government noticed that the land allotted for this specific purpose has not been utilised and therefore relying upon the report of the Tahsildar, action for resuming the land to the Government was initiated. Accordingly, Notice was issued. The petitioner’s explanation was called for. The explanation of the petitioners was taken into consideration and the Appellate Authority has concluded that the land was not brought under cultivation and is completely unproductive. The Additional Commissioner in the impugned order has considered all submissions canvassed before him and also granted enough opportunity to the petitioners to produce material to show that the lands were indeed cultivated as contended. 4. It was the case of the petitioners that after the death of their predecessor the lands were being cultivated. However, neither :3: :3: :3: the 7/12 Extract nor any other document was produced to show that the lands were cultivated and the crops or vegetables are been grown therein. The contentions raised have been rejected as an after-thought. In response, to the allegations and submissions in the Writ Petition, the Sub-Divisional officer, Ulhasnagar has filed an Affidavit-in-reply and in para-11 of the same, this is what is observed. "11. With reference to Para No.10, I say that the Deputy Collector (Appeal) in their Judgment in Appeal No. 126 of 2002, dated 17.12.2003, have noted that the petitioners were not taking crops like Nagli, Varai and Puddy. The Deputy Collector (Appeal) noted that the Appellant have given their address as Naupada, Thane in the application dated 24.2.1971. The panchanama drawn at the spot by the Circle Officer, Goregaon revealed that the predecessor or the appellant never taken crops or used suit land for the purpose of which it was allotted and hence appeal was dismissed. I say that the concerned Talathi tried to serve the notice on the appellant on suit land but the appellant was not found on suit land. The spot panchnama drawn by the Circle Officer also revealed that the suit land is lying unused and oas since date of allotment. The allottees did not used suit land within stipulated period or till the date of order and hence the possession of the land has been taken and vested the land in government for breach of condition. I say that the address mentioned in the allotment order was given and mentioned by the allottee :4: :4: :4: in his application dated 24.2.1971. The allottee or the appellants were not in touch with the Revenue Authority. " 5. In the above circumstances, it is not possible for me to accept the contention of Mr.Apte that the land was being cultivated and that there was no breach of the terms and conditions of the allotment. This is a clear case where the petitioner and the predecessors in title were allotted a piece of land by the Government but it was not cultivated despite several opportunities. The action of resumption therefore cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner. There is no substance in the Writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. sd/- ****