JUDGMENT - N.D. VYAS, J. :---The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is in the nature of a public interest litigation whereby the petitioners are challenging allotment of Government land in favour of the respondent No. 4, who is the wife of the respondent No. 5, who was at the relevant time a Member of Legislative Assembly. The controversy in this petition thus centres around the allotment of land admeasuring 8,000 sq. ft. out of Survey No. 6470, situated at Phaltan, District Satara.

2. It is the case of the petitioners in the petition that the petitioners are well known citizens and are engaged in public life; that the petitioner No. 1 is well known for his agricultural research; that the petitioner No. 2 is a freedom fighter and has been honoured by the Central Government and the State Government, that the petitioner No. 3 is a President of Mahila Samajik Parishad, Phaltan and has been taking active part in various social, educational, political activities for last 20 years and in her capacity as a President of the said Mahila Samajik Parishad, she has been seeking allotment of the land in question for the said Institution and that the petitioner No. 4 is a secretary of Vidyaprasarak Sanstha, Phaltan and is connected with other institutes like I.T.I., Phaltan and several newspapers. It is the grievance of the petitioner in the petition that the said land being a very valuable and strategic Government land, had been allotted in the name of one Yashodabai Shamrao Patil, but in fact, subsequently the same was allotted/transferred in the name of the respondent No. 4 who is, as stated earlier, the wife of the then M.L.A. The petitioners had made several attempts to persuade the Government to cancel the said allotment which, according to the petitioners, was illegal and fraudulent and to the extent that questions were asked on the floor of the Legislative Council to which, although the Government was aware of the manner in which the said allotment had taken place, the Government refused to cancel the same. It is the petitioners case that the said Yashodabai, being a widow of a freedom fighter, was allotted the said land by allotment letter dated 30th November, 1983. However, she had expired on 2nd June, 1983, i.e. more than five months prior to the allotment and that somehow, the said land was transferred in favour of the respondent No. 4, being a daughter of the said Yashodabai. The petitioners although tried their best to get more information regarding the original allotment in favour of the said deceased Yashodabai and subsequent allotment/transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4 which was done by an order dated 8th November, 1984, they could not get any information from the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said allotment is contrary to the provisions of law, and therefore, illegal and mala fide. It is the further contention of the petitioners that as the respondent No. 5 was the then M.L.A., he has, by abusing his official position, managed to grab the said piece of land although the said respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 4 have large pieces of land with them in the vicinity, the particulars whereof are given in para 23 of the petition. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have disputed the challenge to the legality of the said allotment in favour of Yashodabai and allotment/transfer in favour of the respondent No. 4 and have on affidavit stated that the allotment in favour of Yashodabai was done by virtue of section 40 of the Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and Rule 28(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules) and that in favour of respondent No. 4 under Rule 26(2) of the said rules read with section 40 of the Code. In short, it was contended that there was nothing wrong in the said allotment. As far as the respondent No. 4 is concerned, she has taken t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document