The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order obtained by misrepresentation and fraud is a nullity, and the court has the authority to correct such errors, especially in cases involving the entitlement of legal heirs to property under the Rehabilitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. Rule. With the consent of the learned Counsel for parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By this Petition, Petitioners challenge the order dated 10 April 2018 passed by the Minister (Revenue) in Revision Application filed by the Respondent No. 5. By the order, the learned Minister has set aside the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune, dated 10 July 2017 and Additional Collector, Pune dated 5 February 2015. The Additional Collector, by order dated 5 February 2015, had directed corrections in the order of allotment dated 25 January 1988 to the extent of the names of the allottees. In other words, the alternate land which was earlier allotted in the name of the Respondent No. 5, is now shown to have been allotted in the joint names of Petitioners and the Respondent No. 5. Aggrieved by the Additional Collector’s decision, the Respondent No. 5 filed Appeal before the Additional Commissioner, which was rejected. He filed Revision before the Minister (Revenue), who has allowed Revision and has set aside the orders passed by the Additional Collector and the Additional Commissioner. The net result of order passed by the learned Minister is that the alternate land now stands allotted in the exclusive name of the Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioners will have no right, title and interest therein. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the learned Minister and have filed the present Petition.

3. The challenge arises in the light of acquisition of land of original holder Shri Baban Tryambak Neharkar at Village Yedgaon, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. In lieu of acquisition of the land, alternate land at Village Bori (Budruk), Taluka Junnar, District Pune bearing Gat No. 393/2 admeasuring 81 R was sanctioned. However, the order allotting the alternate land was issued in the name of Sadashiv Balshiram Neharkar, grandson of Baban Tryambak Neharkar. As a matter of fact, father - Baban had two sons - Baburao and Balshiram. Therefore, in ordinary course, the alternate land should have been allotted in the joint names of Baburao Baban Neharkar and Balshiram Baban Neharkar. However, since the occupancy price was paid by son of Balshiram i.e. Respondent No. 5, the allotment of alternate land was made in the sole name of Respondent No. 5 vide allotment order dated 25 January 1988. The heirs of other son of Baban i.e. Baburao are aggrieved by such action in allotting the land in the sole name of Respondent No. 5 and instituted proceedings before the Additional Collector for correction of the allotment order. The Additional Collector proceeded to allow the application by order dated 5 February 2015 by adding names of Baburao and his two sons in the allotment order. First Revision of Respondent No. 5 came to be rejected by the Additional Commissioner by order dated 10 July 2017. The Minister (Revenue) has however reversed the decisions of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner by the impugned order dated 10 April 2018, which is the subject-matter of the challenge in this Petition.

4. Mr. Nighot, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners would submit that the correction carried out by the Additional Collector vide order dated 5 February 2015 was perfectly legal as the Respondent No. 5 did not have any right to get the alternate land allotted in his sole name by ignoring the shares of other heirs of deceased Baban Tryambak Neharkar. That, Baban admittedly had 2 sons namely Baburao and Balshiram and the son of Balshiram alone cannot claim ownership in respect of the acquired land and therefore could not have secured allotment in his sole name.

5. Mr. Nighot would attack the order passed by the learned Minister contending that the order passed by the Additional Collector was passed after granting due opportunity of hearing to the Respondent No. 5. That, the learned Minister has erroneously held that Baburao refused to pay the occupancy price without any material to that effect on