( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 988 OF 1991 Raghunath s/o Rachappa Bhalke, R/o Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Manikappa s/o Rachappa, R/o Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. 2. The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 991 OF 1991 Raghunath s/o Rachappa Bhalke, R/o Hanegaon, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. Manikappa s/o Rachappa, R/o Hanegaon, Tq. Degloor, District Nanded. 2. The State of Maharashtra. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. D.N. Patki, advocate for the petitioner in both the writ petitions. Smt. A.N. Ansari, advocate for respondent No. 1 in both the writ petitions. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, AGP for respondent No. 2/State ( 2 ) in both the writ petitions. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st February, 2010] ORAL JUDGEMENT : 1. By these petitions, the petitioner impugns orders rendered by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad and the other revenue authorities, which, in fact, allowed appeal preferred by respondent No. 1 seeking to declamp attachments of land Survey No. 168 admeasuring 6 acres 30 gunthas, situated at village Hanegaon (District Nanded). 2. The respondent filed an appeal/application before the learned Deputy Collector, Degloor, alleging that he was in possession of land Survey No. 168, admeasuring 6 acres 30 gunthas which was wrongly shown as inam land while preparing record of Jamabandi in or about the year 1965. He asserted that instead of ( 3 ) showing Survey No. 167 as the inam land, the then Village Talathi committed mistake and indicated Survey No. 168 as the inam land. He contended that his land Survey No. 168/B, admeasuring 6 acres 30 gunthas, was erroneously attached though it is not an inam land. He alleged that the Talathi erroneously reported that services were not being rendered to the religious devasthan (Maroti temple) and, therefore, the said land was liable to be attached and taken under the Government supervision. His case before the learned Deputy Collector was that the land Survey No. 168/B was a khalsa and patta was already issued in favour of his father i.e. Rachappa. On these premises, he sought release of the said land in his favour. The appeal was allowed by the learned Deputy Collector, Degloor and the said land Survey No. 168/B was directed to be released in favour of the respondent. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeals and revisions which ultimately came to be decided against him. He had filed review application which was allowed by the learned Resident Deputy Collector (R.D.C.), Nanded, but that order was reversed on the ground that the review ( 4 ) application could not have been granted without prior sanction of the competent authority. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned A.G.P. 4. Crux of the problem is whether land Survey No. 168/B was an abolished inam and, therefore, could not have been attached for taking over the same under control of the Government. Another significant aspect is whether the judgement rendered by the Deputy Collector, Degloor in Case No. 77/Appeal/Inam/CR on 22-12-1977 could be regarded as binding on the petitioner. 5. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. It would suffice to mention here that a part of Survey No. 168 was in possession of the petitioner whereas a part thereof was in possession of the respondent No.1, is an undisputed fact. The land Survey No. 167 was the inam land. The petitioner has placed on record a xerox copy of order dated 25th Meher Fasli which prima facie shows that the Collector of ( 5 ) Nanded district had rendered decision on 25-11-1336 Fasli, whereby lease on basis of Ek Sala Lawni against land Survey No. 168 had been cancelled. The order seems to have been rendered by the learned Collector on basis of an application filed by Rachappa who was father of the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. This record was not before the competent revenue authorities while deciding the appeals and revisions. 6. On perusal of the judgement rendered by the learned Resident Deputy Collector on 22-07-1979 (Exh-C), it emerges that land Survey No. 168 was divided amongst the parties and two other holders. The area of 2 hectares 43 Ares is shown in possession of the petitioner whereas 6 acres 30 gunthas area is shown in possession of the respondent No.1. The identity of these lands is not separately indicated with help of any measurement map or the survey record. There appears confusion as regards nature of the inam and the action of attachment in respect of survey No. 168/B. The R.D.C. had reached appropriate conclusion that necessary enquiry was required to be made in order to confirm ( 6 ) which of the parcels of the land Survey No. 168 were part of the inam land and which of the part of the said land could be attached. He rightly observed that the Record of Rights did not provide correct description of the said lands. Needless to say, it is difficult to appreciate that land Survey No. 168/B was erroneously shown in Jamabandi record as inam land and, therefore, had been wrongly attached instead of causing attachment of Survey No. 167. It is necessary to clearly describe the portions of the land Survey No. 168 for the purpose of better understanding of the description of the said land which was in possession of the respondent No. 1 and one which was in the actual possession of the petitioner. So also, necessary enquiry will have to be undertaken to examine whether land Survey No. 167 was required to be attached, but wrongly Survey No. 168/B was attached as contended by the respondent No.1. 7. Considering the ambiguity noticed from the various orders of the revenue authorities and the nature of the alleged mistake caused while preparing Jamabandi record as well as having regard to the copy of order ( 7 ) dated 25-11-1336 Fasli passed by the then Collector in File No. 74/1938-8/1336 F, I am of the opinion that the issues involved in these petitions are required to be decided by the competent revenue authority afresh and on basis of the relevant material. 8. In the result, the petitions are partly allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The appeal case No. 77/Inam/CR is restored to its original position. The Deputy Collector, Degloor shall decide the same afresh after considering the identity of several parts of land Survey No. 168, the nature of inam and the relevant material, as well as after hearing both the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Deputy Collector, Degloor on 15th March, 2010. The learned Deputy Collector shall endeavour to decide the application/appeal afresh within period of six months as far as possible and after giving due hearing to the parties. The parties are at liberty to produce necessary documents before the learned Deputy Collector in support of their respective claims. Rule is partly made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( 8 ) 9. In view of disposal of writ petitions, the civil application No. 2340/1991 (in writ petition No. 991/1991) stands disposed of. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp988-991-91