The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959 does not permit repeated regrants of watan land once regranted to an authorized holder, and the provisions of Section 9 are inapplicable in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

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 19 July 2021 passed by the State Government (Minister-Revenue) thereby allowing the Appeal filed by the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 under the provisions of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959 (‘Act of 1959’). While allowing the application filed by the Respondent Nos.2 to 4, the State Government (Minister-Revenue) has rejected the request of the Petitioners for regrant of the land under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act of 1959.

3. The case has chequered history. Land bearing Gat No.24/27 converted to Gat No.102 admeasuring 1 Hectare 16 Ares situated at Village Ganga Padali, Taluka and District Nashik, was formerly an inferior village watan land Class VI-B. After coming into force of the Act of 1959, the land was resumed by the State Government under the provisions of Section 4 and came to be re-granted to the original Watandar Mr. Baban Salve under Section 6 of the Act. Said Watandar Mr. Baban Salve executed Agreement for Sale dated 26 January 1967 and sold the land to Smt. Renubai Walve, predecessor of Petitioners. The Sale-Deed was, however, not executed. Mr. Baban Salve filed Special Civil Suit No.8/1972 seeking recovery of possession from Smt. Renubai Walve whereas Smt. Renubai Walve filed Special Civil Suit No.92/1972 seeking specific performance of the Agreement for Sale dated 26 January 1967. By Judgment delivered by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik on 30 January 1976, the possession by Smt. Renubai Walve was held to be lawful but she was denied the relief of specific performance.

4. Mr. Baban Salve filed application before the Deputy Collector, Nashik, under Section 84 of the Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act for restoration of possession in his favour. The Assistant Collector, Nashik, directed restoration of possession by order dated 9 June 1977 which came to be challenged by Smt. Renubai Walve before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (‘Tribunal’) by filing Revision Application No.239/1977. The Tribunal allowed the Revision by order dated 2 December 1977 holding that provisions of Section 84 of the Tenancy Act were not applicable to the case. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, Mr. Baban Salve filed Writ Petition No.2618/1979 in this Court, which set aside the Tribunal’s decision by its order dated 20 December 1983 and remanded the matter to the Assistant Collector, Nashik for conducting an inquiry under Section 9 of the Act of 1959. After remand, the proceedings were conducted by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nashik (‘SDO’) who proceeded to dismiss the application of the Watandar by holding that possession of Smt. Renubai Walve was lawful and could not be disturbed under Section 9 of the Act of 1959. The Watandar filed Tenancy Revision Application No.198/1988 before the Tribunal. On preliminary objection being raised about maintainability of the Revision Application, the Tribunal passed order dated 18 September 1990 holding that the Revision Application was not maintainable. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to set aside the order passed by the SDO by exercising inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and remanded the matter to the SDO for fresh inquiry. The Tribunal’s decision was challenged before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.2702/1991. By Judgment and Order dated 13 April 2005, this Court held that it was necessary to decide the nature of possession of Smt. Renubai Walve within the meaning of Act of 1959 and not on the basis of findings recorded by the Civil Court. The Petition was accordingly dismissed and the SDO was directed to conduct a fresh inquiry under Section 9 of the Act of 1959.

5. After conducting the inquiry, the SDO passed order dated 27 February 2006 holding that Smt. Renubai Walve was unauthorized holder and therefore her legal representativ