JUDGMENT :

Mangesh S. Patil, J.

Though these are different petitions since all these petitions raise common questions those have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Rule in all the petitions. Made returnable forthwith. Learned AGP and the learned advocates for the respective respondents waive service. At the joint request of the parties, the matters are heard and are being disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

3. The questions that arise for determination are as to whether the original agriculturists whose lands vested in the State government under the provisions of section 28 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Ceiling Act) are entitled under section 28-1 AA(3) to claim grant of any specific land or their land/s.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Kale h/f. Mr. Pawar for the petitioners in all these petitions would submit that the petitioners being the persons who had previously leased their lands to an undertaking and which were subsequently vested in the State by virtue of the provisions of the Ceiling Act, are entitled to grant of such lands for personal cultivation to the extent of the ceiling area or the actual area of the land leased by such person to the undertaking which have been their lands. In view of such specific and clear wordings of sub-section (3) of section 28-1 AA, the petitioners were insisting the respondent - Collector for grant of their specific lands which they had leased out to an undertaking but subsequently vested with the State government and later on granted in favour of the Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the MSFC) by virtue of an order passed under section 28-1 AA, namely, the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Grant of Surplus Lands taken over from Industrial Undertakings Order, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1970).

He would submit that though the surplus lands were subsequently granted to MSFC, latter has no right to retain a specific portion of their lands granted to it. It has no locus standi to oppose the petitioners’ request for allotment of their lands taken over by the State by operation of law. It is the prerogative of the State under the provisions of section 28-1 AA(3) to grant the land back to the persons who had previously leased their lands to the undertaking, for personal cultivation.

He would submit that it would be logical that once having taken over the surplus lands from the undertaking if the persons who had leased those lands have been made entitled to re-grant, they are granted it for personal cultivation the same land which originally belonged to them. Defying such logic the respondents are illegally refusing to allot the petitioners’ respective lands under the provision.

5. Mr. Kale would further submit that on the one hand the MSFC is opposing the petitioners’ request but at the same time, contrary to the object of preserving integrity of the lands, it is transferring the lands and such actions are even politically motivated. Huge chunk of land at one go has been granted to specific individuals contrary to the aims and object of the Ceiling Act.

6. The learned AGP Mr. Yawalkar would submit that the petitioners have no such right for grant of a specific land. Even a plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 28-1AA does not indicate that the persons like the petitioners who had previously leased out their lands to the undertaking but were found to be surplus with such undertaking and vested with the State government by virtue of the provisions of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners do not have any vested right irrespective of the fact that they may have some emotional attachment and intent to possess the selfsame land which they had earlier leased out to the undertaking. Rather entertaining such requests by different farmers would be contrary to the intention of the legislature of maintaining integrity of the su