132wp4312.13

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 4312 OF 2013

(Ashokrao s/o Gulabrao Thakre vs. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary, Forest & Revenue Department &

Ors.)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

or directions and Registrar's orders.

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

A.P. BHANGALE, JJ.

FEBRUARY 13, 2015.

Heard Shri Shinde, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mrs. Joshi learned AGP for respondent

Nos. 1 to 3.

Shri Shinde, learned counsel points out that

when final notification was published on 26.07.2013, in

terms of Clauses (iii) and (vi) of sub-section (1) of

Section 4 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, Revenue

Sub-division for Digras and Pusad was shown at Digras

in it. The petitioner is resident of Digras and has not

raised objections to support the demand of Sub-

Divisional Office at Digras. However, on 30.07.2013, a

modification has been published and in stead of Digras,

Revenue Sub-Division has been shown at Pusad.

According to him, there never was any proposal to

locate it at Pusad and hence the petitioner did not get

any opportunity to oppose that placement. He further

states that this change is arbitrary and unsustainable.

132wp4312.13

2

The learned AGP submits that after due

application of mind and deliberations, the decision has

been taken. She is relying upon reply affidavit filed on

behalf of Respondent No. 1. She has invited attention to

stand in reply affidavit of the Deputy Secretary. The

said stand is as under :

“I say that pursuant to the said draft

Notification, the Divisional Commissioner submitted the

objections and suggestions along with their comments to

the State Government. Those comments and the objections

and suggestions were taken into account. As far as the

present issue is concerned, all the objections were taken

into account by the State Government and conscious

decision was taken to break the pair of two talukas one

sub division at Sr. No. 172 i.e. Digras and Mahagaon (as

was shown in the Draft Notification). I say that since as

per report of Divisional Commissioner, Amravati, the

proposed Sub-Division created at Sr. No. 171 of Pusad and

Umerkhed (as was shown in Draft Notification) was not

administratively viable or convenient the Umerkhed

Taluka was joined with Mahagaon Taluka at Sr. No. 171

(as was shown in final Notification dated 26.07.2013)

with its headquarter at Umerkhed and further since the

boundaries of Pusad and Digras are adjacent to each

other. The Digras taluka was joined with Pusad by

Notification dated 30.07.2013 with its head quarter at

Pusad. I further submit that Pusad is old Sub-division

132wp4312.13

3

office and has all the ready made infrastructure for

running sub divisional office. I say that while issuing final

Notification dated 26.7.2013, due to clerical mistake the

headquarter of Pusad and Digras Taluka was shown as

Digras. However, the said clerical mistake has been

corrected by issuing Notification dated 30.07.2013 and

Pusad is shown as headquarter of these two Talukas.”

The stand itself shows the material variance

between the draft notification and final notification.

Pusad was never suggested as Sub-divisional

headquarter for Pusad and Digras. The petitioner or

other persons, therefore, did not get any opportunity to

raise objection to that proposal. If State Government

wanted any modification in the proposal, it is apparent

that a fresh draft inviting objections ought to have been

published. This view is already taken by this Court

while deciding Public Interest Litigation No. 72 of 2013

on 10.12.2014.

The portion reproduced above itself shows

that final notification dated 26.07.2013 which disclosed

Digras as Sub-divisional he