1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO.74 OF 2009 (DATTU VOTHU NAGOSE & ORS....Vs..STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ) _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri S.R.Bhongade, Advocate for Appellants. Shri A.M.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondent/State. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : JULY 07, 2009. 1. This is an appeal against order of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Warora below Exh.5 in Special Civil Suit No.184 of 2008, whereby the learned Civil Judge rejected the applicant’s application for injunction to restrain the respondents State of Maharashtra and Tahsildar of Warora from dispossessing the appellant. The appellant is admittedly purchaser of an agricultural land allotted to his vendor Ghanshyam Dhobe as an Ex-serviceman from the surplus lands under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. 2. In view of the provisions of Section 29 of the Act the lands could not have been transferred without 2 permission of the Collector. Admittedly, no such permission is obtained. Therefore, in view of the provisions of Sub- Section (3) of Section 29 the transfers are invalid and as a penalty therefor, after giving show cause notice, the lands are to be forfeited by the Collector. 3. In this case, the documents filed on record show that the Naib Tahsildar had issued notices and called upon the plaintiff Dattu Vithu Nagose to give his say. Therefore, it is not that the State has abruptly decided to dispossess the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of judgments in Rame Gowda Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu, reported at AIR 2004 SC 4609 and M.C. Chockalingam V. V. Manickavasagam, reported at AIR 1974 SC 104, the appellant could not have been dispossessed without following process of law. It is not shown that the respondents are not following process of law in recovering possession from the appellant, who has no right to be in possession, since the land would have to be forfeited to the Government, in view of the provisions of Sub-Section (3) of Section 29 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on 3 Holdings) Act, having been transferred without obtaining permission from the Collector. It has to be mentioned that the object of allotting the land under ceiling is to help those who are in need to be assisted by the State and not for making money by selling such lands. 4. In view of this, the view taken by the learned Civil Judge in rejecting the application for injunction, filed by the applicant, was erroneous. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR.