Bombay High Court

BABURAO RAMJI ZATE DECEASED THROUGH LRS DNYANESHWAR BABURAO ZATE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The court held that the authorities erred in rejecting the proposal on the basis of the missing gat no. 44 record and set aside the orders.

Summary

The petitioners challenged the rejection of their land proposal by the District Level Committee and the Collector, who dismissed it on the ground that a record for gat no. 44 was not placed, even though the petitioners had specifically referred to survey no. 52 and submitted the relevant Pik Pera for 1996-97. The court found that the authorities had committed an apparent error by relying on the wrong survey number and consequently rejecting the proposal. Accordingly, the court partly allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders dated 5 December 2022 and 6 January 2023. The matter was remanded to the District Level Committee to reconsider the proposal within four months. The decision underscores the need for authorities to base their decisions on the correct documentary evidence presented by applicants.

Issues considered

Whether the District Level Committee and the Collector erred in rejecting the petitioners' land proposal on the ground of the absence of a record of gat no. 44 when the proposal specifically referred to survey no. 52.
Whether the orders rejecting the proposal can be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Subjects

land revenue
survey number
gat number
District Level Committee
writ petition
quashing order
remand

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:2922

                                              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
                                 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/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…