Rama Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6528 Of 1995
( From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7 ,90 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. NO. 1858 of 1982 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7 ,90 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. NO. 1858 of 1982 )
Petitioner: Rama
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6528 Of 1995
( From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7 ,90 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. NO. 1858 of 1982 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 10.7 ,90 of the Bombay High Court in W.P. NO. 1858 of 1982 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 15, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. A.K. Sanghi , Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. S.S. Shinde , and Mr. D.M. Nargolkar , Advocates for the Re-spondents .
Head Note:
LAND REFORMS
M.P. Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 1962
Sections 150-A , 150-B- 53 Re-grant of lands – Appellant appointed as ” Gumasta , as S being minor – Appointment of Kotwar hereditary , till the same abolished in 1962 – Appellant appointed independent Kotwar in 1964 only – If had right of re-grant .Held that as on appointed day ( 31.5.1962), he had no right of Kotwar as was not appointed prior to 1964 . No right of his as Kotwar came to be abolished . Hence , application for re-grant was rightly rejected .
Held:
Appellant was appointed as a ‘ Gumasta’ or ‘ substitute kot-war ‘ . The hereditary right of being appointed a kotwar was abol-ished in 1962 . Obviously till 1962 no independent right to be appointed as kotwar could have been claimed by the appellant . It is also not in dispute that an application was made by the ap-pellant for being appointed as a kotwar for the first time in 1964 , and an order to that effect was passed by S.D.O. Bhandare , on 13.7.1964 . Therefore , on 31.5.1962 which is the relevant date , the appellant was not a kotwar and no right of his came to be abolished when the Act was amended and Section 150A and 150B were inserted in it . The appellant’s application made under Section 150B , therefore , deserved to be rejected . ( Para 4 )
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI , J.
1 . The appellant is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1982 .
2 . One Dina Bisan was the kotwar of Village Bhandare . He died in 1953 . Respondent Sharad who was his nephew and the only heir was appointed as a kotwar in his place . As Sharad was a minor at that time the appellant was appointed as a Gumasta/Deputy of Sharad . Sharad became major in 1959 . He made an application on 18.4.1959 for deleting name of the appellant as ‘ Gumasta kotwar ‘ as that arrangement was no longer necessary . No order was passed on it till 1964 . Therefore , he again applied to the Naib Tehsil-dar to delete name of the appellant . By that time , the appellant had also , along with other persons , applied for re-grant of the land as rights of kotwars came to be abolished in 1962 by the M.P. Land Revenue Amendment Act , 1962 and he was the de facto holder on the appointed date i.e. 31.5.1962 and as such entitled to regrant of the land . The appellant’s application was granted .
3 . Respondent Sharad filed an appeal to the Deputy Collector but it was dismissed . Appeal to the Commissioner , Nagpur Divi-sion , was also dismissed . He then filed a Revision Application to the state Government and it was allowed . The State Government took note of the fact that the appellant was merely a Deputy for Sharad and that the appellant was appointed independently as a kotwar in 1964 . As the appellant was not a kotwar on 31.5.1962 he was held not entitled to claim any right of re-grant under sec-tion 150-B of the Act . Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government , the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court . The High Court after considering the legal position and all the material on record upheld the finding recorded by the State Government and dismissed the writ petition .
4 . It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was really in possession of the land and had worked as a kotwar though as a Deputy of Sharad . He was thus the real kotwar and , therefore , consistently with the object of the Act the land was rightly re-granted to him particularly when Sharad had not made any application for re-granting the land to him . In our opinion , the submission raised on behalf of the appellant is mis-conceived . The post of kotwar was a hereditary post . It is not in dispute that Dina one of the recorded kotwars of village Bhandare . It is also not in dispute that Sharad was the only heir of Dina and , therefore , on the death of Dina , under Section 53 of the Act he became entitled to be appointed as kotwar . The State Government has in its order clearly stated that in fact sharad was appointed as a kotwar after the death of Dina and his name was so recorded in the revenue records . As Sharad was minor at that time appellant Rama was also appointed as a ‘ Gumasts ‘ or ‘ substitute kotware ‘ . The hereditary right of being appointed a kotwar was abolished in 1962 . Obviously till 1962 no independent right to be appointed as kotwar could have been claimed by the appellant . It is also not in dispute that an application was made by the appellant for being appointed as a kotwar for the first time in 1964 , and an order to that effect was passed by S.D.O. Bhandare , on 13.7.1964 . Therefore , on 31.5.1962 which is the relevant date , the appellant was not a kotwar and no right of his came to be abolished when the Act was amended and Section 150A and 150B were inserted in it . The appel-lant ‘s application made under Section 150B , therefore , deserved to be rejected . We , agree with the reasons given by the High Court and uphold the order passed by it . The appeal is therefore , dismissed .
1 . The appellant is questioning in this appeal the correctness of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 1858 of 1982 .
2 . One Dina Bisan was the kotwar of Village Bhandare . He died in 1953 . Respondent Sharad who was his nephew and the only heir was appointed as a kotwar in his place . As Sharad was a minor at that time the appellant was appointed as a Gumasta/Deputy of Sharad . Sharad became major in 1959 . He made an application on 18.4.1959 for deleting name of the appellant as ‘ Gumasta kotwar ‘ as that arrangement was no longer necessary . No order was passed on it till 1964 . Therefore , he again applied to the Naib Tehsil-dar to delete name of the appellant . By that time , the appellant had also , along with other persons , applied for re-grant of the land as rights of kotwars came to be abolished in 1962 by the M.P. Land Revenue Amendment Act , 1962 and he was the de facto holder on the appointed date i.e. 31.5.1962 and as such entitled to regrant of the land . The appellant’s application was granted .
3 . Respondent Sharad filed an appeal to the Deputy Collector but it was dismissed . Appeal to the Commissioner , Nagpur Divi-sion , was also dismissed . He then filed a Revision Application to the state Government and it was allowed . The State Government took note of the fact that the appellant was merely a Deputy for Sharad and that the appellant was appointed independently as a kotwar in 1964 . As the appellant was not a kotwar on 31.5.1962 he was held not entitled to claim any right of re-grant under sec-tion 150-B of the Act . Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government , the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court . The High Court after considering the legal position and all the material on record upheld the finding recorded by the State Government and dismissed the writ petition .
4 . It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was really in possession of the land and had worked as a kotwar though as a Deputy of Sharad . He was thus the real kotwar and , therefore , consistently with the object of the Act the land was rightly re-granted to him particularly when Sharad had not made any application for re-granting the land to him . In our opinion , the submission raised on behalf of the appellant is mis-conceived . The post of kotwar was a hereditary post . It is not in dispute that Dina one of the recorded kotwars of village Bhandare . It is also not in dispute that Sharad was the only heir of Dina and , therefore , on the death of Dina , under Section 53 of the Act he became entitled to be appointed as kotwar . The State Government has in its order clearly stated that in fact sharad was appointed as a kotwar after the death of Dina and his name was so recorded in the revenue records . As Sharad was minor at that time appellant Rama was also appointed as a ‘ Gumasts ‘ or ‘ substitute kotware ‘ . The hereditary right of being appointed a kotwar was abolished in 1962 . Obviously till 1962 no independent right to be appointed as kotwar could have been claimed by the appellant . It is also not in dispute that an application was made by the appellant for being appointed as a kotwar for the first time in 1964 , and an order to that effect was passed by S.D.O. Bhandare , on 13.7.1964 . Therefore , on 31.5.1962 which is the relevant date , the appellant was not a kotwar and no right of his came to be abolished when the Act was amended and Section 150A and 150B were inserted in it . The appel-lant ‘s application made under Section 150B , therefore , deserved to be rejected . We , agree with the reasons given by the High Court and uphold the order passed by it . The appeal is therefore , dismissed .
