The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper representation in the Grampanchayat and the impact on the overall growth and development of the area, leading to the court's decision to grant group hearing and a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

JUDGMENT

S. G. Dige, J. - Rule. Ms. Bane, learned AGP, waives service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned communication and order dated 4th June, 2020 passed by learned Collector, Sindhudurg (Respondent No.2) thereby cancelling the draft notification No.REV-3601/1/2012 dated 11th September, 2019.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Village Kudase, Taluka -Dodamarg, District Sindhudurg is a large village comprised of 7 wadis viz. Gaothanwadi, Harijanwadi, Bharpalwadi, Raulwadi, Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and Deomalwadi. The said village is geographically divided into two parts by river - Tilari. The villages viz. Gaonthanwadi, Harijanwadi, Bharpalwadi and Raulwadi are situated on the northern side of the river -Tilari and villages viz.Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and Deomalwadi are situated on the southern bank of the said river. The approximate population of the villagers who are residing within northern side of hamlets/wadi is 669. While, the population of the hamlets/wadis situated on the southern bank of the river is 851.

4. It was the grievance of the residents of Vanoshiwadi, Dhanagarwadi and Deomalawadi that they have no proper representation in the Grampanchayat of Village Kudase. As a result, the overall growth and development of the area situated on the southern bank of the river is hampered. For these and various other reasons, it was a long standing demand of the residents from the wadis of southern side to divide village Kudase into two parts and thereby to form a separate revenue village for the above mentioned area. The applications were submitted to respondent Nos.2 and 4 seeking division of village Kudase and formation of two separate revenue villages.

5. A draft notification bearing No. REV6301/1/2012 dated 11 th September, 2019 was issued by respondent No.2, whereby it was notified about the formation of two separate revenue villages as Kudase and Vanoshi. The said formation was opposed by the members of the village panchayat - Kudase. Accordingly, on the objection, an inquiry was conducted by respondent No.4 post a personal visit to village Kudase and a report was submitted to respondent No.3. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.2 declared that the draft notification dated 11th September, 2019 stands cancelled. The petitioner filed a review petition before respondent No.2 against the said cancellation of the draft notification but it was rejected. This writ petition has been brought in consequence of the said rejection.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Village - Kudase is a large village. The villages on the southern side of the river Tilari are not developed. If a separate revenue village is created, the villagers will get better educational opportunities as well as proper medical facilities. The collector had issued notification for formation of a separate village as the population of these villages is more than 300. Accordingly, notification was issued for formation of a separate village but it was cancelled without any reasonable ground and without giving an opportunity to the villagers to be heard, which is bad in law. Hence, it is requested to allow this petition.

7. It is the contention of learned AGP that though earlier notification was published for formation of separate revenue villages, but there was an opposition from the side of the villagers. An inquiry was conducted whether formation of a separate village is suitable or not and report was submitted. According to that report, the formation of a separate revenue village was not suitable. Hence, the said notification was cancelled.

8. We have heard the arguments canvassed by both the learned counsel. Admittedly, respondent No.2-Collector, Sindhudurg, had issued notification for formation of separate villages. As per Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Rev