ORAL JUDGMENT :- By this petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to challenge the notices dated 21-2-1990 and 17-5-1990 issued by the Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. By the said notices the petitioner is informed that the order dated 6-2-1989 passed by the then Additional Commissioner would be taken up for review on the grounds mentioned in the said notices.

2. Brief facts, which are necessary to be recited are that : the petitioner claims to have purchased the land to the extent of 199.5 sq. metres under four sale-deeds from one Fakira Ahru Ghisadi and Kisan Ashru Ghisadi. The said property was given Gram panchayat house number 1096 and 1097. It appears that the petitioner had sought permission to carry out construction on the said property, which was granted by the Gram Panchayat by passing a resolution in that behalf. Thereafter, it appears that City Survey scheme was implemented in the said village, as a consequence of which, a survey was carried out by the Enquiry Officer, appointed by the State Government, in which enquiry, it was revealed that the petitioner has encroached upon an area of 161.99 sq. metres in Survey No.4, which was a Government land. In view of large scale encroachments on Government lands in Gram Panchayat areas, the Government had taken a policy decision, which was contained in Government Order No. MH/KA/I5/Land (2)-CR 458 dated 25-2-1987 for regularizing the encroachments.

3. Pursuant to the said policy decision, the Collector, Ahmednagar, conducted an inquiry under sections 51 and 52 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred, for the sake of brevity, as said Code) and fixed Rs. 72,895.50 ps. as price to be paid by the petitioner for regularization. The petitioner challenged the said order of the Collector, Ahmednagar, by filing a Revision being Revision Application No. 481/1988 before the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik. The Revisional Authority stayed the order of the Collector dated 8-12-1987. Before the Revisional Authority, the petitioner had contended that regularization should be granted to the petitioner on the same basis as was granted to other encroachers in the vicinity and specifically referred to the case of one Kamlabai Jaju. The then Additional Commissioner, taking into consideration the relevant aspects, substituted the price fixed by the Collector, by fixing the price of Rs. 6,480/-, to be paid by the petitioner for regularization. The Revision application was accordingly disposed of by order dated 6-2-1989. The petitioner, pursuant to the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in the said Revision, deposited the said amount of Rs. 6,480/- with the Government treasury. The matter thereafter rested there.

4. Suddenly, on 21-2-1990, the petitioner received a notice for hearing of the said revision on 30-3-1990. The petitioner, pursuant to the said notice, filed reply dated 24-4-1990 and brought to the notice of the Additional Commissioner, who had issued the notice dated 21-2-1990, that the Revision Application has already been decided. On the said reply of the petitioner, it appears that an endorsement was made by the office of the Additional Commissioner, which is quoted hereunder:

"In this case, though the case was decided, higher authorities have directed to take the case for review and hence notice dated 21-2-1990 was issued accordingly which does not seem to have been received by the appellant. Case in put on 25-5-1990.

Sd/24-4-1990"

5. Thereafter the petitioner received a further notice dated 17-5-1990, asking the petitioner to remain present for hearing on 25-5-1990. The stand of the respondents in the said notice had changed inasmuch as the respondents relying upon section 258 of the said Code had communicated to the petitioner that the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner dated 2-11-1989 would now be taken up for review on the ground that the regularization gran

Click Here to Read the rest of this document