KASHINATH SHITARAM ADMANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40598-DB


                                                  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,
                                  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.