JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The petitioners assail order dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Collector, Jalna thereby confirming the order passed by the then Assistant Collector, Jalna on 13.03.1991 for resumption of land allotted to them. They also challenge orders dated 17.11.2008 06.11.2009 allotting the land in favour of the respondent No. 7.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The case involves checkered history. One Vithoba Dhaktode was allotted land out of Sy. No. 488 for cultivation under “Grow More Food Scheme”, the objective of which was to bring barren land under cultivation by allotting the same to the landless persons. It is claimed that Vithoba brought the land which was otherwise rocky, dry and barren under cultivation through his onerous labour. Vithoba died on 28.04.1989 and names of his legal heirs were brought on record by mutation entry dated 19.08.1989.

4. On 13.03.1991, the then Assistant Collector, Jalna passed common order against 31 persons for resumption of various lands without issuance of any notice and without following principles of natural justice. The order included name of Vithoba, who had already expired on 28.04.1989. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993 before this Court challenging the order dated 13.03.1991. The petition was admitted and interim relief was granted by way of directions to the respondents not to disturb their possession over the land. Fifteen other affected allottees filed revision before the State Government challenging the order dated 13.03.1991. The revision was allowed by the Officer on Special Duty and Secretary (Appeals and Revision), Revenue and Forest Department by order dated 30.07.1993 quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.03.1991. Later, Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993 came to be allowed by this Court on 22.03.2012, setting aside the order dated 13.03.1991. However, since the factum of petitioners filing Civil Suit No. 165 of 1991 for injunction was suppressed from this Court, costs of Rs. 5,000/- were imposed on the petitioners with direction to deposit the same with the Treasury within four weeks. The respondents therein were granted liberty to initiate such proceedings as were permissible under law against the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that cost was deposited with the Nazir of this Court.

5. After the Writ Petition No. 2398 of 1993 was allowed and the order dated 13.03.1991 was set aside, the petitioners requested for restoration of their names in the record of rights. Since the request was not accepted, the Contempt Petition No. 319 of 2012 was filed before this Court. During the pendency of the contempt petition, the petitioners received notice dated 07.05.2014 from the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalna proposing to conduct hearing in the proposed proceedings for resumption of the lands. The petitioners appeared before the Sub-Divisional Officer on various dates, but it is claimed that the hearing could not take place.

6. The petitioners claim that on 13.09.2017 and 30.10.2017, Naib Tahsildar attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioners by bringing JCBs. At that time, the petitioners were orally informed that the land was already allotted to other persons. They first lodged F.I.R. for attempting to disturb their possession and thereafter filed the present petition challenging the allotment of land in favour of the unknown persons and sought to restrain respondent Nos. 1 to 5 from taking over possession of land without paying the compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

7. After affidavit in reply was filed, the petitioners noticed that the land was already allotted by the Collector in favour of the respondent No. 7 on 17.11.2008 and 06.1