1 WP / 15836 / 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1039 WRIT PETITION NO. 15836 OF 2023 BABURAO RAMJI ZATE DECEASED THROUGH LRS DNYANESHWAR BABURAO ZATE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS ... Advocate for petitioners : Ms. Ashwini Deshmukh with Mr. Shriram Deshmukh AGP for the respondent – State : Mrs. M.L. Sangit ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 17 JANUARY 2026 PER COURT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order passed by respondent no. 4 – District Level Committee, Hingoli and respondent no. 2 – Collector, Hingoli dated 05.12.2022 and 06.01.2023, respectively, whereby the proposal of the petitioners was turned down on the ground that the record to the extent of gat no. 44 was not placed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to clause 3 of the proposal which is filed by the petitioners (which is at page no. 25 of the paperbook), wherein survey no. 52 is specifically mentioned. Though in the said proposal, there is an endorsement that Pik Pera of the year 1996-97 with regard to survey no. 52 was submitted, yet a finding was recorded that the proposal was pertaining to gat no. 42 and, on this ground, proposal was not considered. He further invited my attention to page no. 26 of the paperbook, wherein 2026:BHC-AUG:2922 2 WP / 15836 / 2023 clause no. 1 and 3 of the said order specifically state that the petitioner had been residing on the relevant land prior to 13.12.2005 and the said land was measured through GPS and only because the record regarding survey no. 44 was not placed, the Committee rejected the proposal. 4. After going through the record, it reveals that the petitioners in clause no. 3 of the proposal had specifically mentioned the survey no. 52 and to that effect Pik Pera of the year 1996-97 was also submitted, yet the authority has rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that record relating to gat no. 44 has not been placed. Theretore, the authorities have committed apparent error while rejecting the said proposal. 5. Therefore, I am inclined to partly allow the writ petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Committee and the Collector. 6. In view of that, the order dated 05.12.2022 passed by respondent no. 4 – District Level Committee, Hingoli and order dated 06.01.2023 passed by respondent no. 2 – Collector, Hingoli are quashed and set aside. 7. The matter is remanded to the respondent no. 4 - District Level Committee, Hingoli which shall reconsider the proposal of the petitioners within a period of four (4) months from today. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE arp/