1 WP 4834-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4834 OF 2017 Kashinath s/o Shitaram Admane Since deceased Through L.Rs. 1-A) Sumanbai w/o Kashinath Admane, Age : Major, Occ. : Household, 1-B) Dadasaheb s/o Kashinath Admane, Age : Manor, Occ. : Private Service, 1-C) Anilkumar s/o Kashinath Admane Age : 36 years, Occ. : Private Service, Applicant Nos. 1-A to 1-C, R/o M-9, H-104/2, Shrikrushnagar, HUDCO, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Division Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The District Collector, Aurangabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 5. The Superintendent of Land Record, 2026:BHC-AUG:40598-DB 2 WP 4834-2017.odt Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 6. The Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. 7. The Tahsildar, Sillod, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 8. The Circle Officer, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 9. Talathi Sajja Village Ambhai, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. .. Respondents Mr. R. R. Karpe & Mr. Yogesh Kale, Advocates for Petitioners. Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 9. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER ( PER KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) :- 1. The petitioner, an Ex-Army person has approached this Court seeking direction to the respondents to implement and act upon order dated 14.07.1976 passed by the learned Tahsildar, Sillod whereby land of five acres was allotted to him. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the State and revenue officers above the rank of Tahsildar, respondent Nos. 5 & 6 are the Superintendent of Land Record, Aurangabad and Deputy Director of Land Record, Aurangabad, respondent No. 7 is the Tahsildar, 3 WP 4834-2017.odt Taluka Sillod, respondent No. 8 is Circle Officer, Taluka Sillod and respondent No. 9 is Talathi, village Ambhai, Taluka Sillod. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in short is that the learned Tahsildar by letter dated 14.07.1976 had allotted him, being Ex- Army person, a piece of land from land survey No. 160 of village Ambhai, Taluka Sillod, District Aurangabad. The Circle Inspector was directed to hand over possession of the land from survey No. 160. It is the case of the petitioner that since he was in service at that time, he could not immediately take possession. However at the same time it is also a case that he has already taken possession. It is further case that since he was in service he could not actually cultivate the land. The name of the petitioner is already recorded in 7/12 extract. He had made representation on 17.03.2004 to take further entries in his name. The petitioner thereafter again persuade the matter, however, since the authorities have not paid any heed, the petitioner has approached this Court. It was lateron found that his name is even removed from revenue record subsequently. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Karpe for the petitioner vehemently argued that, pursuant to the order passed by the learned Tahsildar 4 WP 4834-2017.odt allotting the land, in fact, possession was also taken. The entry in his name was thereafter taken in the revenue record. However, he could not actually cultivate the land as at that time he was in service. It is his case that now he required the land for cultivation. However, the authorities are not taking any further action. The land is allotted to him under rule 17 (4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1971”). Once the land is allotted, it is for the authorities to see that the person is actually put in possession. He relies on some entries in the revenue record showing that entry in his name was also taken in revenue record. Petitioner started making representations from 2004 and ultimately found that the authorities are not acting upon the allotment letter and therefore, it is necessary to direct the authorities to allow the petitioner to cultivate the land. A prayer is also made to physically handover the possession of the land. 5. The learned A.G.P. vehemently argued that, no case is made out by the petitioner to allow the petition. He invites attention to the reply filed by respondent Nos. 2 to 4 & 7. He submits that the land was allotted in the year 1985. The petitioner has approached 5 WP 4834-2017.odt this Court in the year 2017 i.e. almost after 32 years. The petition suffers from delay and laches and on this sole ground petition need not be entertained. In the present case, admittedly, land is never cultivated by the petitioner and he was never put in actual possession. For the first time in the year 2004 he made a communication to act upon the allotment letter. He relies upon rule 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the Rules of 1971 which prescribes certain conditions to put the land under use. So far as other aspects are concerned, he submits that, rule 15 (1) (b) of the Rules of 1971 prescribes that the person has to act upon and to put the land under cultivation within two years from the date of allotment. He thus submits that, in any case, for flouting the said condition the petitioner is not entitled to get the land. 6. This Court has heard the parties. It is seen that on one hand the petitioner in communication dated 17.03.2004 has stated that the petitioner is already put in possession and on the other hand he is praying for direction to put him in possession. This Court specifically made queries to the learned advocate for the petitioner as to when the petitioner is actually put in possession. However, there is no satisfactory answer. There is also no record to show 6 WP 4834-2017.odt that the petitioner was actually put in possession of the land as it is clear from the prayer itself. 7. Looking to rule 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the rules of 1971 it is clear that the petitioner did not bother to take any steps till 2004. Rule 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the Rules of 1971 reads as under : “15. Terms and conditions of grant : (1) Every grant of land under this part shall be subject to the provisions of the Code in these rules; and in particular, to the following conditions, that is to say- (a) the grantee shall not mortgage, sell, assign or otherwise transfer the land or any portion thereof, except with the prior sanction of the Collector; (b) the grantee shall bring the land under cultivation before the expiry of two years from the date of the grant; (c) the grantee shall be liable to pay full assessment of the land : Provided that, in cases of virgin land, no assessment shall be charged for a period of first three years from the date of the grant. (d) the occupancy price, if any, payable by the grantee under Rule 14 shall be paid in such annual installments not exceeding- (i) twelve, if the grantee is a person belonging to the backward class, and (ii) six, in any other case, as may be fixed by the Collector. 7 WP 4834-2017.odt (2) If the grantee commits a breach of any of the conditions specified in sub-rule (1), the Collector may resume and take possession of the land granted to him, and the grantee shall be liable to be evicted from the land.” 8. Even after 2004 he only kept on making representations. In the meantime, though in the revenue record his name is shown, however, it is clear that entries by itself will not show that the petitioner was in possession. It is seen from the communication by the petitioner himself that on 25.07.2011 his name was not appearing in 7/12 extract as is clear from his representation dated 03.08.2011. Thus, from 2004 onwards he only kept on making representations to the authorities and it is only in 2017 he approached this Court. It is also seen that even in the newspaper items his grievance was published in the year 2015. He also used to approach the authorities on “Lokshahi Din”. 9. There are certain communications issued by the respondent – Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Sillod. It was informed to submit relevant documents and to file an appeal before the higher authorities. The Deputy Director of Land Records observed that already the entries are taken in the land survey No. 160 in the year 1975. The entries are also taken in the names of persons who 8 WP 4834-2017.odt are actually in possession of portion of respective lands in the said Gat number. There is no mistake found committed in the consolidation scheme while taking the entries. 10. The Deputy Director of Land Records by order dated 20.09.2014 observed that it is for the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities for redressal of his grievance. However, there is no material to show that the petitioner was actually put in possession. In the reply it is accepted by the authorities that initially plot no. 20 admeasuring five acres in land survey no. 160 was allotted to the petitioner. However, the said plot was never taken in possession by the petitioner. The allotment was made in the year 1976. It is on 14.05.1986 the Collector passed an order cancelling the allotment in the name of petitioner. This order is never challenged by the petitioner. On the basis of letter dated 14.05.1986 the name of the petitioner came to be deleted from the revenue record. The petitioner even has not challenged the said order of deletion of entry. Now the petitioner cannot be given the land under such circumstances. 11. In the judgment in the case of Jagpal Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Punjab And Ors., (2011) 11 SCC 396, now it is trite that 9 WP 4834-2017.odt the Gayran land cannot be allotted to anyone. The said land can be put only for public utility services. 12. In the rejoinder the petitioner has also made averment that the petitioner was repeatedly pursuing the authorities for getting actual physical possession of the portion of agricultural land. From this averment also it is very much clear that at no point of time the petitioner ever made any attempt to take possession till 2004. By that time the Collector had already cancelled the allotment as the land was not put to use for the purpose for which it was granted. 13. Considering all above, this Court finds that, no case is made out by the petitioner. Even if the delay and laches on the part of the petitioners are condoned, still even on merits this Court finds that no case is made out to allow the petition. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed. ( JITENDRA JAIN, J.) ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B.