The decree of the Civil Court declaring land as non-Watan is binding on revenue authorities, and regrant under the Maharashtra Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 is invalid if the land is not Watan.

JUDGMENT :

1. By this petition, Petitioner has challenged the Order dated 25 August 2009 passed by the Minister-Revenue rejecting his Revision Application and confirming the Order dated 16 July 2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune who in turn, had confirmed the Order dated 23 April 2001 of Tehsildar, by which the land in question has been regranted in favour of the contesting Respondents. Petition thus involves the issue of validity of Order of regrant of the land in question in favour of the contesting Respondents under the provisions of the Maharashtra Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950.

2. A brief factual narration as a prologue to the judgment would be necessary. The land admeasuring 4 Acres and 11 Gunthas bearing Survey No. 65/1 at Village-Parvati, Taluka-Haveli, District- Pune within the limits of Pune Municipal Corporation was originally owned by Mr. Trimbak Ganesh Deshpande and Mr. Baburao Laxman Deshpande, who sold the same to Mr. Manohar Sitram Padalkar vide registered Sale-Deed dated 22 April 1898. It is Petitioner’s case that the land was released from Watan Inam before execution of the Sale- Deed and that there is an endorsement to that effect in the Inam Register in the year 1936-37. The heirs of Manohar Sitaram Padalkar sold the land to Mr. Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar by registered Sale-Deed dated 9 September 1937, whose name came to be mutated vide Mutation Entry No. 4046 dated 26 March 1938. It is Petitioner’s case that a registered Lease-deed was executed by Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar in favour of Mr. Pandurang Gopal Gavandi for tenure of 25 years for utilization of the leased land for the business of manufacturing of bricks and allied products. On 3 July 1950, a Partnership Deed was executed between the two brothers, Pandurang Gopal Gavandi and Vishwanath Gopal Gavandi for carrying out the business of manufacturing of bricks under the name of Padma Bricks Factory.

3. On 1 May 1951, the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950) came into effect. By Mutation Entry No. 789 dated 28 July 1952, a remark regarding application of provisions of the Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 came to be recorded in the revenue records of the land. By another Mutation Entry No. 709 dated 31 January 1953 the name of ‘Hind Sarkar’ was mutated as occupant of the land. It is Petitioner’s case that Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar made application dated 19 March 1953 to the Mamlatdar claiming that he was an absolute owner and not a Watandar in respect of the land. Alternatively, he expressed willingness to pay appropriate Nazrana in the event of the land being treated as a Watan land. It is Petitioner’s case that though the application was made for payment of Nazrana within specified time, no Challan was issued and therefore payment of Nazrana could not be made. By Mutation Entry No.911, the earlier Mutation Entry No. 709 was corrected mentioning the names of State Government as well as Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar possibly to convert the land as Class-I land on payment of Nazrana. By Mutation Entry No.1134 certified on 25 December 1961, the remark ‘Akari Pad’ (assessed waste land) was made in the revenue records of the land possibly on account of non-payment of Nazrana. On 20 March 1962, the Circle Officer proceeded to take possession of the land by conducting Panchanama on the ground of non-payment of Nazrana by Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar. Though taking over of such possession was objected by Balaji Bhavansa Walvekar, the possession of the land was taken from the lessee, Pandurang Gopal Gavandi on 28 May 1962. The partnership between the two brothers, Pandurang and Vishwanath Gavandi was dissolved and Padma Brick Factory was to be exclusively operated by Vishwanath Gopal Gavandi. It is Petitioner’s case that in all 7/12 extracts, name of Pandurang Gopal Gavandi was always reflected as ‘unlawful possession’.

4. It is Petitioner’s case that by letter dated 29 June 1964, the Mamlatdar,