Está en la página 1de 38

अपर िज हािधकारी, वधार् यांचे यायालयात

( उपि थत : संजय भागवत )

महसूल अपील क्र.29_NAP-34_13-14
मौजा. अ लीपूर ता.िहंगणघाट
दाखल िद. 08/07/2013
आदेश िदनांक: 05 स टबर 2014
अिपलाथीर् :
1. योगेश गोिवंदराव वभेर् (मो. नं. 9823033012)
वय: 39 वषेर्; धंदा: यावसाईक.
2. गोपाल चंपतराव मेघरे
वय: 35 वषेर्; धंदा: मजरु ी.
3. आनंदराव िवठोबाजी साखरकर
वय: 55 वषेर्; धंदा: क टीवेटर.
सवर् रा.अ लीपूर ता.िहंगणघाट िज.वधार्
वकील: ी.पनु ावाला – 9860069492
िव द्ध
उ रवादी :
1. शामनारायण िकसनलाल जैसवाल
वय: 75 वषेर्; धंदा: िनवृ .
2. िवजय शामनारायण जैसवाल
वय: 50 वषेर्; धंदा: यवसाईक.
दो ही रा. अ लीपूर ता.िहंगणघाट िज.वधार्
वकील: ी.िवनोद राऊतपूरीया – 9960404569
1 | P a g e  
 

वादातील जमीन :
अ.क्र.

मौजा

क्षेत्र (चौ.मी.)

1

अ लीपूर

80.84

आकारणी
38803/-चालान क्र. 130 िद.30/11/10

वादातील प्रकरण :
मौजा

भख
तपशील
ु ंड क्षेत्र
क्र
.
अ लीपूर 710 80.84 उ रवादी शामनारायण िकसनलाल जैसवाल व इतर 1 यांनी मौजा
अ लीपूर येिथल गावठाणातील भख
ु ंड क्र. 710 चे लगतची 80.84
चौ. मी. जागा महारा ट्र जमीन महसल
ु संिहतेचे कलम 20 व 30 नस
ु ार
तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे आदेश िदनांक 04/12/2010 नस
ु ार
िनवासी प्रयोजनासाठी मंजूर के ली अस याने व सदर जागे या
वापरातील बदल यावसाईक प्रयोजनासाठी क न िमळणेसाठी
िदनांक 24/07/2012 रोजी तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचेकडे अजर्
के ला.
तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी सदर प्रकरणात जािहरनामा काढला व मौका
चौकशी क न िदनांक 14/03/2013 रोजी उपिवभागीय अिधकारी
िहंगणघाट यांचेकडे प्रकरण पाठिवले. सदर प्रकरणात अिपलाथीर् ी
योगेश गोिवंदराव वभेर् व गोपाल चंपतराव मेघरे यांनी िदनांक
28/03/2013 रोजी आक्षेप दाखल के ला.
अिपलाथीर् यांनी िदवाणी यायालयात िदवाणी मामला क्र. 355/2012
अ वये उ रवादी िव द्ध प्रकरण दाखल के ले असनु याम ये
तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट व िज हािधकारी वधार् यांना पक्षकार के ले आहे.
िदवाणी दावा उ रवादीचे अितक्रमण काढ यासाठी आहे.

2 | P a g e  
 

संदभीर्य प्रकरण :
1. तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे प्रकरण क्र. 01/एलएनए-22/2010-11 मौजा अ लीपूर ता.
िहंगणघाट िज. वधार्
2. तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे प्रकरण क्र. 02/एनएपी-34/2012-13 मौजा अ लीपूर ता.
िहंगणघाट िज. वधार्
3. उप-िवभागीय अिधकारी, िहंगणघाट यांचे रे हे यू अपील क्र.02/एनएपी-34/2012-13
मौजा अ लीपूर ता. िहंगणघाट मधील पािरत आदेश िदनांक 24/06/2013(अपील मंजरु )

घटनाक्रम:
प्रा अिभलेखानस
ु ार प्र ततु प्रकरणातील घटनाक्रम पढु ीलप्रमाणे आढळून येतो.
िदनांक

घटनेचा तपशील
4/12/2010 उ रवादी यांना संदिभर् य प्रकरण क्र. 01 नस
ु ार सदर शासकीय जागा शा त
भोगवटया या अिधकारसह पट्टयावर मंजूर कर यात आली आहे.
याबाबत जागेचे मु य हणून . 38,803/- उ रवादीने शासन जमा
िदनांक 30/11/2010 ला चलनाद्वारे के ले व यानंतर तहिसलदार
िहंगणघाट यांचे कडून िदनांक 04/12/2010 ला नमनु ा 12 म ये
करारनामा क न घे यात आला व नमनु ा 18 म ये तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट
कडून िदनांक 04/12/2010 ला सदर जागेचा पट्टा उ रवादींना दे यात
आला. अशारीतीने सदर जागा उ रवादी या ता यात व हक्कात आहे.
24/07/2012 उ रवादीने अ लीपूर गावठाणातील भख
ु डं क्र. 710 चे पि मेस लागून
असले या परंतू शा त भोगवटया या अिधकारासह पट्टयावर दे यात
आले या क्षेत्र 80.84 चौ. मी. जागेचा वापर िनवासी प्रयोजनाऐवजी
यावसायीक प्रयोजनासाठी बदल क न िमळणेबाबत तहिसलदार
िहंगणघाट यांचे कडे िदनांक 24/07/2012 रोजी अजर् सादर के ला.
13/08/2012 अिपलाथीर् यांनी िदवाणी यायालयात िदवाणी मामला क्र. 355/2012 अ वये
उ रवादी िव द्ध प्रकरण दाखल के ले असनु याम ये तहिसलदार
िहंगणघाट व िज हािधकारी वधार् यांना पक्षकार के ले आहे. िदवाणी दावा
उ रवादीचे अितक्रमण काढ यासाठी आहे.
3 | P a g e  
 

( महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अिधिनयम १९६६ चे कलम २४७ अ वये दाखल अपील अजार्नस ु ार ) व तुि थती: अिपलािथर् नी सादर के लेले द त ऐवज. लोअर कोटार् चा अिभलेख. तलाठी अ लीपूर यांनी वयं प अहवाल तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांना सादर के ला. िहंगणघाट यांचे वरील आदेशाने यिथत होऊन अिपलाथीर् ी योगेश गोिवंदराव वभेर् व इतर 2 यांनी अपर िज हािधकारी वधार् यांचे कडे िदनांक 08/07/2013 अपील दाखल के ले. यांचा अ यास के या नंतर मला वरील घटनाक्रमात नमूद के या नस ु ार व तूि थती लक्षात आली. सदर प्रकरणी तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी तलाठी अ लीपूर यांचेकडून वयं प अहवाल मागिवला. अिपलाथीर् यांनी सदर अजार् वर िदनांक 28/03/2013 रोजी आक्षेप घेतला. उपिवभागीय अिधकारी िहंगणघाट यांनी तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचा प्र ताव मा य क न क न उ रवादी ी शामनारायण िकसनलाल जैसवाल यांचा अजर् मा य के ला. िव. उपिवभागीय अिधकारी.84 चौ. जागेवर यावसायीक प्रयोजनासाठी अकृषीक आकारणी िनि त कर याचे िदनांक 24/06/2013 रोजी आदेश िदले. तसेच तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांना महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अिधिनयम चे कलम 44 नस ु ार सदर 80. 4 | P a g e     .21/08/2012 21/08/2012 27/08/2012 14/03/2013 28/03/2013 24/06/2013 08/07/2013 उ रवादी यांचे अजार् वये तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी सदर प्रकरणी कुणाचेही आक्षेप वा हरकती िकं वा िहतसंबध अस यास या सादर कर याबाबत जािहरनामा प्रिसद्ध के ला. मी. तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी सदर प्रकरणात जािहरनामा काढला व मौका चौकशी क न िदनांक 14/03/2013 रोजी उपिवभागीय अिधकारी िहंगणघाट यांचेकडे प्रकरण पाठिवले.

िदवाणी दावा उ रवादीचे अितक्रमण काढ यासाठी आहे. उ रवादी शामनारायण िकसनलाल जैसवाल व इतर 1 यांना मौजा अ लीपूर येिथल गावठाणातील भख ु ंड क्र.84 चौ. जागेचा वापर िनवासी प्रयोजनाऐवजी यावसायीक प्रयोजनासाठी बदल क न िमळणेबाबत तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे कडे िदनांक 24/07/2012 रोजी अजर् सादर के ला होता. अिपलाथीर् यांनी िदवाणी यायालयात िदवाणी मामला क्र. 01 नसु ार सदर शासकीय जागा शा त भोगवटया या अिधकारसह पट्टयावर मंजूर कर यात आली आहे. उ रवादी यांना संदिभर् य प्रकरण क्र. उ रवादीने अ लीपूर गावठाणातील भख ु डं क्र. 3. अशारीतीने सदर जागा उ रवादी या ता यात व हक्कात असलेली िदसून येते. 710 चे लगतची 80. 355/2012 अ वये उ रवादी िव द्ध प्रकरण दाखल के ले असनु याम ये तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट व िज हािधकारी वधार् यांना पक्षकार के ले आहे. 5 | P a g e     . याबाबत जागेचे मु य हणून . मी.84 चौ. जागा महारा ट्र जमीन महसल ु संिहतेचे कलम 20 व 30 नस ु ार तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे आदेश िदनांक 04/12/2010 नस ु ार िनवासी प्रयोजनासाठी मंजूर कर यात आली आहे.उ रवादीने शासन जमा िदनांक 30/11/2010 ला चलनाद्वारे के ले व यानंतर तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचे कडून िदनांक 04/12/2010 ला नमनु ा 12 म ये करारनामा क न घे यात आला व नमनु ा 18 म ये तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट कडून िदनांक 04/12/2010 ला सदर जागेचा पट्टा उ रवादींना दे यात आला.803/.1. 2. मी. 4. 710 चे पि मेस लागून असले या परंतू शा त भोगवटया या अिधकारासह पट्टयावर दे यात आले या क्षेत्र 80. 38.

6. उपिवभागीय अिधकारी िहंगणघाट यांनी तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांचा प्र ताव मा य क न क न उ रवादी ी शामनारायण िकसनलाल जैसवाल यांचा अजर् मा य के ला. तसेच तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांना महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अिधिनयम चे कलम 44 नस ु ार सदर 80. मी. तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी सदर प्रकरणात जािहरनामा काढला व मौका चौकशी क न िदनांक 14/03/2013 रोजी मौजा अ लीपूर हे गाव वगर् 1 म ये येत अस यामळ ु े सदर प्रकरण उपिवभागीय अिधकारी िहंगणघाट यांचेकडे पाठिवले. 10. 6 | P a g e     . अिपलाथीर् यांनी सदर अजार् वर िदनांक 28/03/2013 रोजी आक्षेप घेतला. 9. 11.5.84 चौ. यानसु ार उ रवादी यांचे अजार् वये तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी सदर प्रकरणी कुणाचेही आक्षेप वा हरकती िकं वा िहतसंबध अस यास या सादर कर याबाबत जािहरनामा प्रिसद्ध के ला. जागेवर यावसायीक प्रयोजनासाठी अकृषीक आकारणी िनि त कर याचे िदनांक 24/06/2013 रोजी आदेश िदले. 8. 7. सदर प्रकरणी तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांनी तलाठी अ लीपूर यांचेकडून वयं प अहवाल मागिवला आहे. तलाठी अ लीपूर यांनी यांचे वयं प अहवालात सदर जागेचा यावसायीक प्रयोजनाकरीता बदल कर यास योग्य राहील असे नमदु क न तहिसलदार िहंगणघाट यांना िदनांक 27/08/2012 रोजी अहवाल सादर के ला. िहंगणघाट यांचे वरील आदेशाने यिथत होऊन अिपलाथीर् ी योगेश गोिवंदराव वभेर् व इतर 2 यांनी अपर िज हािधकारी वधार् यांचे कडे िदनांक 08/07/2013 अपील दाखल के ले. उपिवभागीय अिधकारी .

the respondents cannot be allowed to agitate that point once again before learned trial court on 24. the date on which the dispute is already pending before civil court against the respondents and learned lower court through the Collector Wardha and learned Tahsildar Hinganghat. Which is filed in the month of August 2012 and the respondents have appeared and filed their written statement on 17.e.10. 7 | P a g e     . for grant of lease in favour of respondents for residential purpose.2012 and during the pendency of suit.अिपलाथीर् यांचा युक्तीवाद : अिपलािथर् नी यांचे यिु क्तवादात मख्ु यतः खालील मद्य ु ांचा समावेश के ला आहे. a civil suit is already pending against the respondents and also against the lower court through state of Maharashtra including state of Maharashtra.09.2012. The learned lower court ought to have seen that for the impugned subject i. to defeat the interest of appellants. 1.

5. The learned lower court ought to have seen that the government land needs to be allowed strictly in favour of needy persons for residential use and it cannot be used to enrich any person. under such circumstances. 3. The learned lower court ought to have seen that the matter was pending before competent civil court and thus. the learned lower court has committed serious error of law. but deciding the same. he ought to have restrained himself from deciding the issue as he is one of the parties through Collector Wardha and this fact was brought to the notice by producing documents.2. The learned trial court ought to have seen that by deciding subsequent application during the pendency of the suit and if it is decided in favour of respondents. The learned lower court ought to have seen that it is the respondents who had already constructed on the leasehold plot for giving it on commercial purpose and not considering this material aspect. it not to have been decided the same. 8 | P a g e     . 4. it would defeat the interest of appellants. thereby committed an error of law.

one should not decide the matter sixed by the competent civil court. The learned lower court committed an error of law in observing that no stay order copy is filed by the appellants on record. he cannot ask for commercial purpose allotting it on rent. 9 | P a g e     . The learned lower court ought to have seen that no case is made out for permission to change the use of the land as one cannot be allowed to ask for change of use of the land by initially taking it for residential purpose and than as per his sweet choice. that too when the deciding authority is also a party. The government itself would have allotted on rent and could have earned money for its own land and there is no reason to allow the respondents for getting rent for the Government land at the cost of Government.6. in the interest of justice and by principles of natural justice. ignoring the material fact that question of stay does not arise as the learned lower court itself was knowing regarding pendency of suit being party before competent civil court and also being in receipt of notice u/s 80 of cpc and it is settled position of law that when the matter is seized by the competent civil court. 7.

It is true that some part of plot no. 1 and 2 had applied for permission for construction with defendant no. उ रवादी यांचा यक्त ु ीवाद : उ रवादींनी यांचे यिु क्तवादात मख्ु यतः खालील मद्य ु ांचा समावेश के ला आहे. 1 and 2 have made 10 | P a g e     . It is true that the defendant’s no.Hinganghat. 2. 710. 3. Hinganghat. That. 9. 1. Tah-Hinganghat. It is also true that defendant’s no. Dist-Wardha. 1 and 2 own and possess immovable property at Mouza-Allipur.1 has taken on lease a plot from Tahsildar. the learned lower court has not given any reason as to how it has justified cause in granting sanction for commercial use and this and speaks a lot of.8. 1 owns and possesses a plot bearing no. It is true that the defendant on. The judgment & order passed by the learned trial court is based on mis appreciation of fact. It is also true that the defendant no. 559 is purchased by defendant no. evidence and material on record and the same needs to be set aside. Tah. It is true that the plaintiffs are permanent resident of Allipur. It is also true that the defendant no.

Admane had been to the spot and had inspected the spot and had taken the measurement to find out the encroachment (if any) it is denied that accordingly he had prepared a map showing the factual position on the spot. the plaintiffs have taken the services of civil engineer Shri. It is denied that for ascertaining the encroachment on the spot. ft. It is also denied that defendants no. the civil engineer Shri.ft.construction. It is denied that on the southern side.9 sq. it is also denied that civil engineer Shri. the defendant’s no. 1 and 2 have not left open space as per sanction granted by the defendant no. 1 and 2 have made encroachment to the extent of 271. It is absolutely false that while making construction the defendants no. Admane. 11 | P a g e     . 710 and land lease out by the Tahsildar. 2.3. It is also denied that in the said map. 1 and 2 have made encroachment to the extent of 231 sq. 1 and 2 have made encroachment on the southern side as well as on the western side. Admane has shown the spot of Bhukhand No. 3. and on the eastern side the defendant’s no. but it is false that they have made construction in contravention of permission granted by defendant no.

towards southern side is shown by letter EDLR. defendant no. ft. 1 and 2 are going to give on lease the constructed area to the State Bank of India. 1 by letters ABCDEFTGA. 2 who is civil engineers and has special knowledge of the construction work and drawing the map. 1 and 2 are filing herewith true and correct map showing the factual situation of the present construction and its surrounding situation.e.6.Hinganghat in favour of defendant no. The said defendant’s no. It is submitted that alleged map drawn by Shri Admane and field by the plaintiffs as the parcel and part of the plaint is not correct. existing drainage towards western side and the roads towards southern and western side. The said map is drawn by the defendant no. accurate and according to the correct factual situation of this spot. It is also denied that in the said map the encroachment area on the western side is shown by letters PDNMP admeasuring 271.9 sq. hence the said map is denied.It is true that 12 | P a g e     . 3. in the map.ft. It is true that defendants no. It is denied that in the same way. encroachment area to the extent of 231 sq. Branch-Allipur i. The said map is treated as the part an parcel of this written statement.

It is true that the plaintiffs are the citizen buy no 13 | P a g e     .6 or any third person in contravention of grant of lease is parse illegal and unwarranted by law. 4 is only for residential purpose and the defendants no. 4.and 2. unwarranted by law and they have no right to pose their nose in the instant matter.the defendant nio. 1 and 2 to make construction by making encroachment and to make construction in contravention of sanction and with intent to give the constructed area to the defendant no. The submission of the plaintiffs in this Para is baseless.the defendants no. It is denied that the plaintiffs had intimated accordingly to the defendants about illegal act on the part of defendants no. It is also denied that the plaintiffs have every right to use the road and the encroachment on the southern side is on the road. 4. 6.1 and 2 are knowing that the land of lease is allotted by the defendant no. 1 and 2 have made construction accordingly so that it can be given on lease to the defendants no. 1. It is denied that the defendant on. It is denied that the act on the part of defendant’s no. 1 and 2 cannot give it on rent and cannot use it for business purpose in contravention of terms and condition of grantof land on lease by.

It is denied that in view of this the plaintiffs were constrained to get issued a notice through their Advocate u/s 80 of Civil Procedure Code on dated 04/06/2012 to the defendant’s No. It is submitted that the contents of said notice false and after thought hence it was suitably replied by this defendant’s No. It is also denied that the plaintiffs had already brought these facts to the notice of defendants No.1 and 2. 1 and 2. there is obstruction of the right of the plaintiffs to use the road on which the construction is made by the defendant’s no. 1 to 5. 1and 2 are also the citizen of India and they have got fundamental right to possess and enjoy their property as per their sweet will. It is absolutely false that accordingly. It is submitted that the contents of said notice are 14 | P a g e     . 5.3 to 5 but no action has been taken against the defendant’s No. 1 and 2. The defendants no.citizen can act detrimental to the rights of other citizen.. It is denied that the plaintiffs have every right to bring to the notice regarding contravention of sanction of construction and the plaintiffs have every right to bring t o the notice regarding the contravention of terms and conditions of land taken on lease for residential purpose only.

It is denied that by the said reply 15 | P a g e     . It is true that the defendants are in receipt of the notice. 3 introduced a false story that he had been there on the spot on 50/07/2012 and did not find any encroachment and also contended that there was no any complaint from anyone. 3 sent false reply vide its reply notice dated 30/07/2012 It is denied that for the first time. 3 was called upon to supply the documents on the basis of which he came to the conclusion regarding no encroachment.like the command of the Sovereign of having super powers with the plaintiffs. the defendant no. 1 and 2 have made no wrongs. Hence. but it is denied that they failed to comply with the name. The alleged notice of plaintiffs is parse illegal and unwarranted under law. the other contents of this Para are denied in Toto. 6. It is denied that on the contrary. it is necessary to pay any heed to the demand in the notice. hence. the defendant no. It denied that in view of this false reply. the defendant no. It is submitted that this defendant’s No. the plaintiffs were constrained to send reply notice vide reply notice of plaintiffs dated 06/08/2012 It is denied that by the said reply notice.

3 failed to do the same. 1 and 2 as the land granted on lease in favour of the defendants no. 7. the plaintiffs informed the defendant no. the plaintiffs denied all the false contentions raised by defendant no. vide their notice dated 23/07/2012 and brought all the above facts to their knowledge. 1and 2 to give their land or any part of it along with other land to the defendant no. It is denied that by the said notice. It is 16 | P a g e     .6 was requested and informed that he has no right to enter into agreement of lease of rent with defendants no. 6 that he plaintiffs are intending to file a civil suit and by the said notice.notice. 6 as well as its Regional Manager through their Advocate. 1 and 2 is only for residential purpose and accordingly the defendants no.3 in his reply notice dated 30/07/2012 and he was again requested to comply with the notice of the plaintiffs dated 04/06/2012 with immediate effect but the defendant no. It is denied that the plaintiffs were also constrained to issue to notice to defendant no. It is denied that the plaintiffs have already conveyed this fact to defendant no.6 on rent/license or lease. 6 before issuing notice dated 23/07/2012 also. the defendant no.

1 and 2 on lease from defendant no. 6 was called upon to restrain itself from entering into agreement with above referred defendant’s no. It is denied that they were called upon to comply with the notice with immediate effect. 6 has not conveyed up till now to the plaintiffs that he is not going to take on lease or license or rent any part of land or constructed area which is secured by the defendants no. It is denied that in spite of notice.denied that by the said notice. 4 only for residential purpose. Allipur in the old unsuitable place. the plaintiffs will be constrained to knock the door of law for the above matter and in that event. it is submitted that the plaintiffs have filed this suit with their ulterior motive to make not only harassment of defendants but to get wrongful gain in their nearby business by having the branch of SBI. he will also be held liable for the costs and consequences there of including that of plaintiffs.6 was also conveyed by the said notice that in case of his failure t o comply with the said notice. which they have obtained on lease for their residential purpose only. It is denied that the defendant no . the defendant no. the defendant no.. It is the 17 | P a g e     . 1 and 2 regarding the land and any part of it.

6 as to where to keep their branch and to enter into an agreement for lease or license with the defendants No.1 and 2 and defendant No. The plaintiffs have bno right to create any hurdles in the transactions in between the defendants No. the defendants no . rent or license that piece of 18 | P a g e     . 1 and 2 received the notice got issued by the notice got issued by the plaintiffs through their advocate as stated above.4 on lease for residential purpose only.1 and 2 have kept mum regarding the objection taken by plaintiffs that the defendants no. 1 and 2 and to occupy tlheir constructed structure.6 8. It is denied that by the said reply notice. 1 and 2 have no right whatsoever it may to create third party interest on the land secured by them from defendant no.sweet will of the defendant no. It is denied that on the contrary. they sent a false reply notice through their advocate vide their reply notice dated 19/06/2012 The reply notice sent by these defendant no. It is true that the defendants no.1 and 2 through their advocate to the advocate of plaintiffs was true and correct. It is denied that they have also not assured that they are not going to give on lease.

1 and 2 dated 19/06/2012 vide reply notice of plaintiffs dated 10/07/2012 and denied all the false contentions raised by the defendants no. now the plaintiffs are left with no other alternative but to file the instant suit for removal of encroachment made by defendants 1 and 2 by grant of mandatory permanent injunction and mentioned in the plaint as well as in the plaint map. It is submitted that the defendants no 1 and 2 have not taken any land from the defendant no. 9. It is denied that in view of this. 1 and 2 in their reply notice. 6 or in favour of any third person.6 or in favour of any third person on the peace of land secured by them from defendant no. 1 and 2 speak a lot that they have made a mind to create third party interest either in favour of defendant no. It is denied that the 19 | P a g e     . they tried to make false personal allegations against the plaintiffs and this attitude on the part of defendants on.land either in favour of defendant no. It is denied that on the contrary. the plaintiffs were again constrained to send a reply through their advocate to the reply notice of defendant no. It is denied that in view of the above facts. 6 on lease for residential purpose only. 6 on lease as alleged.

The plaintiffs have no rights under law to seek a relief for cancellation of that 20 | P a g e     . Even these defendants have not brought that allotted entire land under their new construction work.plaintiffs are also constrained to file the instant suit for relief of removal of constructed area illegally constrained by defendants 1 and 2 in contravention of permission granted by defendant no.4. 1 and 2 permanently from creating any third party interest or giving on rent. It is again submitted that these defendants have not changed the use of the land which they have been allotted by the defendant no. 3. 1 and 2 The claim of the plaintiffs for the relief of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants no. 4 on lease is also not tenable under law. since the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the property of the defendants on. It is submitted that these defendants have not made any encroachment. by way of seeking a relief of mandatory permanent injunction. It is submitted that he plaintiffs have no legal right to file the instant suit for any relief in the nature of any injunction against the defendants. 1 and 2 from defendant no. lease or license the piece of land which is secured by defendants no.

It is denied that it has also arisen on 10/07/2012 when the plaintiffs were again compelled to send reply notice to the defendant’s no. It is denied that has also arisen when the defendant’s no. 11. It is denied that cause of action for the instant suit has arisen on various dates of the year 2011 when the plaintiffs raised objection regarding the illegal activities on the part of defendants no.e. Regarding Para 11 of the plaint: .sanction which is granted by defendant no. the contents of this Para are denied as to the alleged causes of action for the suit. 3 to 5. in favour of defendant’s no. 1 and 2 sent a false reply through their advocate. 1 and 2.The contents of this Para ate formal hence they need no reply. 1 to 5. 21 | P a g e     . 10. It is submitted that the cause of action for this suit never arose in respect of the matter in question in favour of the plaintiffs. defendants no. 1 and 2 in respect of piece of land granted on lease in their favour. 1 and 2 to the various authorities i. It is denied that it has also arisen on 04/06/2012 when the plaintiffs were constrained to issue a notice u/s 80 of civil procedure code to the defendant’s no. Thus.

1 and 2. may kindly be saddled upon the plaintiffs by dismissing the suit with xoists and the compensatory costs together in the ends of justice.1 to 3 are the matter of records. The plaintiffs.000 /. The plaintiffs have filed the instant suit with malafide intention and just to harass the defendant’s no. 22 | P a g e     .as per Section 35-A of CPC. The suit is vexatious and frivolous to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence.12.1 and 2 as they are the bonafide and lawful owners and occupiers of suit house property. 1 and 2 due to village political rivalries. hence the compensatory costs of Rs 20. the suit is devoid of any merit and it is filed by the plaintiffs with malafide intention to make harassment of this defendant’s no. Thus. 13. The plaintiffs have no locus standee to file this suit and to seek any relief against the defendants. the comparative would be caused to these defendants no. notice dated 04/06/2012 and their reply notice dated 10/07/2012 are denied being false and afterthought. hence need no reply. The exchange of notices and reply between the plaintiffs and the defendants no.

The plaint of the plaintiffs is devoid of any merits. 2 and others in respect of the matter in question. 1 and 2 which is situated at Sadanand Ward. 1963. 1 and 2 the plaintiff no. 1. The plaintiffs have got no personal interest in the property in question. they are residing in different localities and far away from the house property belonging to the defendant’s No. 15. 1 and 2 or against the defendants no.1. Although the plaintiffs are residents of Allipur.Anandrao Satarkar is residing 23 | P a g e     . The plaintiffs cannot raise any dispute either against the defendants no. as such they are legally debarred to seek any relief of injunction in view of section 41(J) of the Specific Reliefs act.14. The plaintiff no. The defendants No. Allipur which is at the distance of about 300 meters from the house construction work of defendants no.Yogesh Varbhe is residing in Vithathal Mandir Ward. It is submitted that the plaintiffs have no legal right and authority to file any suit against the defendants. 1 and 2 are absolute owners and in possession of the property in question and they did not do any illegality while making their new house construction work. Allipur . 3. 3to 6 as per the contents in the plaint in question. No.

1 and 2 Presently. 1. which is at the distance of about 300 meters from the house construction of defendants No. this real cause is hidden by the plaintiffs while issuing the instant notice and while filing the 24 | P a g e     . Allipur which is at the distance of about 650 meters from the said plot of construction work of defendant’s no.Yogesh has Photo Studio and Xerox center in the rented room of one Waman Rogho Surkar.1Yogesh is frightened from losing his business of Photo Studio and Xerox coping business. the Branch of S. Allipur is shifted from the present place to another suitable accommodation. 16. Allipur which is at the distance of about 400 meters from the said house construction work of defendants no.in Atipati Ward. no. the State Bank of India is rented out by one Narayan Waman Wanjari in Atipati Ward. which is adjoining to the Photo Studio and Xerox center of the plaintiff no . 14. The plaintiff no. Allipur. It is also submitted that the plaintiff no. 2Goal Meghare is residing in Bhawani Ward. in Atipati Ward. in case.I. However.1 and 2. Allipur.B. 1 and 2 this situation is shown in the separate map filed with list at sr.

18.present suit. Allipur has already made spot enquiry on 05/07/2012 and prepared spot 25 | P a g e     . as per provision of Section 38 or as per the Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. They have further alleged that the defendant’s no. 1963. In the present suit. Hinganghat. Allipur. 17. 3 Gram panchayat. taken on lease from the defendant no. The plaintiffs are bound to show on record the case to prevent the breach of an obligation existing in their favour for seeking such relief of injunction. 1 and 2 that they have not made house construction as per sanction granted by the defendant No. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the defendant’s no. It is submitted that the plaintiffs must show prima facie case to stand for seeking any injunction by the infringement of their legal rights. But it is submitted that the defendant no. 3 – Gram panchayat. 4 – Tahsildar. 1 and 2 have made encroachment on the road site towards southern and western sides. the plaintiffs are alleging against the defendants no. as it cannot be a legal cause of action to issue the notice and to file this suit. 1 and 2 are going to make the change in the use of the site.

injunction is to be refused. 3 to 6.enquiry report. 1 and 2 for their house construction and it is found that the construction is as per the sanctioned map. when equally efficacious relief can certainly be 26 | P a g e     . 1 and 2 19. 3 to 6 to see whether they have done anything wrong in their official capacity. There was no complaints of adjoining residents of the said construction work of the defendants no. No encroachment from any side is found on the spot in said enquiry. The plaintiffs have no legal right to take use of the forum of this Hon ble Court to seek any direction against the said defendants. As per the provision of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act. 1 and 2 the defendant no. The said legal authority did not find any breach of the sanction granted to the defendant no. 3 has already informed to the plaintiff’s counsel accordingly by its reply notice dated 30/07/2012 and the copy of that reply notice is sent to said defendants no. It is submitted that there are hierarchy of lawful authorities to the defendant’s no. It is hence submitted that the plaintiffs are not the legal authority to take any action against the acts or omissions of the lawful authorities like the defendants no.

It is hence humbly submitted that the plaintiffs cannot seek the relief of any injunction order from this Hon ble Court against the defendants. The suit of the plaintiffs must depend on their own right and title. It is settled principle of law that the plaintiffs must show as to how their civil rights are affected or are likely to be affected due to the acts of the defendants. 21. 1 and 2 had applied for getting sanction to make house construction to the defendant no. On this count alone the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. the plaintiffs have not made out any case as to the breach of their civil rights for filing this suit. It is further submitted that although the plaintiffs are the citizen as per their averments in the plaint. The plaintiffs cannot claim any negative form of relief as regard the status of the defendants. In the present suit. Allipur and they made no encroachment either on 27 | P a g e     . It is submitted that the defendant No.obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust. 20. mere citizenship is not sufficient to file this suit. 3 and they did the construction work as per the sanctioned map and permission granted by Gram Panchayat.

1 and 2 by the Tahsildar.B.southern side or on eastern or on western side as alleged by the plaintiffs.Vijay has taken huge loan amount from the S. the defendant no. It is submitted that after the western side road.84 sq.1 and 2 did not make any contravention of sanction for construction granted by 28 | P a g e     . The defendant no. running north to south and thereafter there is the site which is allotted to the defendants no. Allipur for the construction work in question. Hinganghat i. 1and 2 have remitted the price amount of that allotted land to the government treasury and the said land was already in use and occupation of the defendants No. The defendant No.. having their old house construction work. The said land given on lease to them is only 80.e. 4 The defendant No. meters and remaining land under house construction was /is already belonging to the defendant No.I. there is the Gram Panchayat big permanent constructed drainage of 1 meter wide.1 and 2 with the absolute right for lifelong use and occupation. That thus. 2. 1 and 2 as owners thereof. 1 and 2 are at liberty to enjoy their house property as per their sweet choice. 1 and 2 since long and the same is allotted to the defendants No. defendant no.

23. 1 and 2 ate shown by letters IFABKCKQROPI in the said map. i. The said map is drawn by the defendant no. the site out of Bhukhand no. ft. Hinganghat is shown by the letters DQRGFED.60 sq. It is further clarified that.e. 710 belonging to the defendant no. the site of Bhukhand No. meters.00 sq. That thus.552. ft. meters i. 1 from Tahsildar. all these three sites belonging to the defendant’s no. 22.25 sq. The site which was purchased out of Bhukhand No. In the sketch map of the site belonging to defendants on 1 and 2 attached with this written statement as the part of it. and the site which is taken on lease is admeasuring 29 | P a g e     . who is a Civil Engineer and having knowledge of drawing a map. 559 belonging to defendant no. 3 and they did not make any encroachment as alleged in the plaint.e. the site of old Bhukhand no.defendant no. and the site which is taken on lease by the defendant on. 559 belonging to the defendant no. 32 sq. 1394. 2 is shown by letters AHGPIJA. 2 is shown by letters ABCDEFGHA. 2 is admeasuring to 51. 2 himself. 710 is having area of 129.

the total construction work is shown by letters ABKLMNOPIJA. Thus.e. Ft. It is submitted that the defendant’s no. the drainage.84 sq. Pramod N. i. western side road and southern side road are clearly shown open. In the map attached to this written statement. the total area of all these three sites is adjoin9ng to each others. the construction work of the defendant’s no. meters. the change of the users of the lease hold site is 30 | P a g e     . which in all they are admeasuring to 2816.to 80. having no encroachment there on. That thus. which are drawn on 03/09/2012 by the photographer Shri. the old innovated old structure under plot No. 1 and 2 are filing 4 photo graphs of their constructed house.869. So for as. Allipur . the defendants 1 and 2 did no wrongful acts on their part in making the said construction of the house in question. Thus.08sq. In the said map. 710 is shown by letters CKTSC 24. So also. Tapase Prem Studio. fts. 1 and 2 is within the area of the sites belonging to them and they have left open spaces towards southern and western side which is shown by letters SDLTS and DMNORQD in the said map.83 sq.

No injunction order can be passed for preventing any lawful authority from exercising its powers given by law in that situation. it is liable to be regularized by the lawful order of the defendant’s no. 31 | P a g e     . It appears that he is treating himself above all in the village due to his news paper corresponding work. Thus the suit of the plaintiffs is premature too.Yogesh Varbhe is the correspondent of Allipur for daily news paper. 1. As such. Hence. 4 or 5. if any change in users of that land is happened in future.concerned.Lokmat. 25. namely. the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs may kindly dismiss with costs and compensatory costs together in the ends of justice. he has taken the assistance of his two friends namely.Gopal Meghare an Anandrao Sakharkar (plaintiffs no 2 and 3) for issuing the bogus and false notice and for filing this suit with malafide intention. it has not yet come in picture. It is needless to say that the plaintiff no. At any rate.

शासनाकडून. कोण याही िदवशी. िज हािधकार्या या मते. 32 | P a g e     . मी. व याब ल पूणर् भरपाई हणून. इमारत: मी करारना या या तारखेपासून ----------. याबाबत मी यासोबत जोडले या दस ु र्या अनस ु ूिच या खंड -----------.अिधिनयमातील तरतुदी महारा ट्र जमीन महसल ु अिधिनयम 1966 अंतगर्त सरकारी जमीनीची िव हेवाट लावणे िनयम मधील नगरेतरक्षेत्राम ये असले या जमीनीचे भोगवटदार होऊ इि छणार्या यक्तींनी संमत करावया या करारना याचा नमनु ा बारा अंतगर्त अटी व शतीर्1. मोठया प्रमाणावरील खचार् िशवाय.वषेर् या मदु तीसाठी-------------. दाराचे िभंतीचे. फरसबंधीचे िकं वा अशा जमीनी या इतर प्रािधकृत उभारणीचे िकं वा बांधकामाचे सामान. जमीनी या कडेवर पट्टा राखून ठेवणे: र या या प्रयोजनासाठी. मी. अशा जमीनी या पट्टया या क जा िनमटु पणे िज हािधकार्यास देईल. अशा वािधन के ले या जमीनी या पट्टयावर.ु कोण याही. उक्त जमीनी या संबंधात वेळोवेळी देय असले या जमीन महसलु िवशेष हणजे (-------. प्रमाणानस ु ार देय असेल अशा आकारणी या ( ) पटीइतकी रक्कम मोबद यादाखल घेईन:परंत.पासून सु होणार्या --------.अशा जमीनीस लागू असले या यावेळी अमलात असले या िनयमा वये बसिवता येईल अशा कमी दराने) असलेली--------. 3. हलिवणे शक्य नसेल या बाबतीत िज हािधकार्यास योग्य वाटेल अशी आणखी भरपाई. उक्त जमीनीवर--------. 2. वेध प्रािधकरणाकडून वेळोवेळी िन ीत के ली जाईल अशी पढु ील मदु तीसाठीची आकारणी देईन. अशी नोटीस िमळा यापासून एक मिहना संप यानंतर. िज हािधकार्याने मला िद यास.याम ये अंतभर् तु असले या इमारतीिवषयक िवनीयमांचे प्र येक बाबतीत यथोिचतरी या पालन करीन. उक्त जमीनी या कडे या पट्टयातून ----------.मीटरपेक्षा अिधक खोल नसेल एवढया जमीनी या पट्टयाची शासनास आव यकता आहे अशा अथार् ची लेखी नोटीस. 4. वापर: िज हािधकार्या या पूवर् मंजूरीखेरीज मी उक्त जमीनीचा व यावर उभारले या िकं वा उभार या जावया या इमारतीचा ---------------.वषार् या मदु तीत िकं वा वैध प्रािधकरणाद्वारे िनि त कर यात येईल अशा मदु तीत. भिव यातकाळात.पये रक्कम आकारणी हणून देईल आिण यानंतर.खेरीज कोण याही इतर प्रयोजनासाठी वापर करणार नाही िकं वा वापर कर यास परवानगी देणार नाही.भरीव कायम बांधकाम उभा न ते पूणर् करीन. याब ल मला दे यात येईल.दराने िकं वा --------------.

वारसा हक्काने. मी उ लंघन करीन तर. शा तीिवषयक खंड: (1) महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल (सरकारी जमीनीची िव हेवाट लावणे) िनयम 1971 या िनयम 41 अ वये जमीनीचे पनु ग्रहण कर यात आले नस यास पवु र् वतीर् शतीर्पैकी कोण याही शतीर्चे िकं वा अिधिनयमा वये के ले या व उपरोक्त मा या जमीनी या संबंधात लागू असले या कोण याही िनयमाचे . कोण याही वेळी. प्रशासक व मा य अिभह तांिकती. पट्टा क न. अिधिनयमाचे उपबंध लागू असणे: उक्त अिधिनयमाचे उपबंध व यावेळी अमलात असलेले सवर् िनयम व आदेश यांचे उपबंध. िज हािधकार्यास उक्त अिधिनयमा या उपबंधा वये या इतर कोण याही शा तीस मी पात्र असेन. अनिजर् त उ प नवाढीपैकी 90 टक्यापयत रक्कम िमळ याचा हक्क असेल. अिभह तांकीती व कायदेशीर प्रितिनधी. या शा तीस बाधा न आणता तो िनदेश देईल असा दंड आिण िकं वा अशी आकारणी िद यानंतर. लागवडीसाठी. 33 | P a g e     . िवभाजन क न. गहाण ठेवूण िकं वा इतर कोण याही प्रकारे उक्त जमीन. (ब) रा य शासना या परवानगीखेरीज मी जमीनीचे िवभाजन करणार नाही िकं वा अशा कोण याही पोट िवभागाची िव हेवाट लावणार नाही.मी. धारणािधकार: -------------. उक्त जमीन मा या भोगवटयात अस याचे चालू ठेवता येईल. रा य शासनास. (क) कारखाना व इतर संच मांडणी यासह संयत्रं जमीनीची मी िवक्रीद्वारे िव हेवाट लावीन याबाबतीत.5. मी माझे वारस . 7. 8. उक्त जमीनी या मा या भोगवटयास लागू असतील. संपूणर्पणे अस या खेरीज ह तांतरीत करणार नाही िकं वा ितचा कोणताही भाग यामळ ु े ितची िवभागणी होईल अशा िरतीने . ह तांतरण: (अ) मी . 9. िकं वा भोगवटा कर यासाठी देणार नाही.मी उक्त जमीनी या संबंधात लाद यात येईल असे सवर् कर पट्टया व उपकर देईल. रा य शासना या पवु र् मा यतेखेरीज. कोण याही यक्तीस . पट्टी दे यासंबधीचे दायी व: ----------. जमीनीवरील बांधकाम व कारखाना सयंत्र व इतर संच मांडणी यासह असेल यािशवाय जमीनीची िव हेवाट लावणार नाही आिण अशा िरतीने िव हेवाट लावलेली जमीन रा य शासना या परवानगीखेरीज इतर प्रयोजनासाठी वापरली जाणार नाही. वापरासाठी. कोण याही जमीन िकं वा ितचा कोणताही भाग िकं वा ितच्यातील कोणताही िहतसंबध ह तांतरीत करणार नाही. रा य शासनास. अनिजर् त उ प न वाढी या िन मी रक्कम िमळ याचा हक्क असेल आिण अशी जमीन उपरोक्त कोण याही बांधकामािशवाय ह तांतरीत कर यात येईल याबाबतीत. जेथवर ते लागू असतील तेथवर. 6. माझे वारस. मृ यपु त्र यव थापक.

तो. उक्त जमीनीपैकी दोन ततृ ीयांश जमीन सामा यपणे खल ु ी ठेव यात येईल आिण िज हािधकार्या या मते जमीन िकमती असेल िकं वा इमारतीम ये गरीब वगार् तील यक्ती राह याचा संभव असेल िकं वा जमीनी या िकमती उंचाव या असतील असा बाजार िकं वा शहरातील म यवतीर् भाग यासारख्या अगोदरच दाटीने इमारती असले या क्षेत्रात. उक्त जमीन असेल तर. 4. िज हािधकार्याने याबाबत िवहीत के ले या कालावधीत. उक्त जमीनीवर उभारलेली कोणतीही इमारत.प्रयोजनासाठीच वापर यात येईल.61 मीटर असेल. 3. अशा क्षेत्रात फक्त एक ि दतीयांश जमीन खल ु ी ठेव यात येईल. 7. 5. जोडले या नकाशात खणु के ले या क्षेत्रातच के वळ इमारत उभारता येईल व उक्त जमीनीचे उवर् रीत क्षेत्र मोकळी जागा हणून ठेव यात येईल. ही जमीन दे या या उपबंधािव द्ध उभार यात आलेली िकं वा वापर यात आलेली कोणतीही इमारत िकवा संरचना. उक्त जमीनीवर कोण याही जागी कोण याही शौचकूप. जोते जमीनी या सवर् साधारण पातळीपासून 0. तळमजला व एकवरचा मजला याहून अिधक मजले असलेली व यात योग्य अशा पोचमागार् ची तरतूद कर यात आली असेल यािशवाय. िज हािधकार्याकडून िकं वा याने प्रािधकृत के ले या अिधकार्याकडून मा यता दे यात आली नसेल तर.(2) उप-खंड (1) म ये काहीही असेल तरी. उपद्रवकारक यवसायासाठी वापरता कामा नये. िनवासी इमारती या बाबतीत. उक्त जमीनीवर उभार यात आलेली इमारत के वळ ---------. कोणतीही अशी इमारत उक्त जमीनीवर उभारता कामा नये. 2. 34 | P a g e     . अनस ु ूची दोन (लागू असणार्याशतीर्ची संख्या अनदु ाना या शतर् 3 म ये नमदु कर यात येईल व िवशेष शतीर् अनषु गं ाने समािव कर यात येतील. काढून टाक याबाबत िकं वा तीत बदल कर याबाबत िज हािधकार्याने िनदेश देणे हे वैध असेल व िवहीत कालावधीत अशी (इमारत) काढुन टाक यात िकं वा तीत बदल कर यास आ यास. 6.) 1. मलकंु डी िकं वा तबेला बांध यात येणार नाही. ते काम पार पाड याची यव था करील आिण उक्त काम कर या या खरच् जमीन महसल ु ाची थकबाकी अस याप्रमाणे मा याकडून वसूल करता येईल.

प्र ततु प्रकरणात उ रवादी ी जय वाल यांना अ लीपूर येथील आबादी जागेतील भूखंड ( Area:80. िज हािधकार्या या लेखी पूवर्परवानगीिशवाय. सदर वाटप महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अधींिनयमाितल सरकारी जिमनीची िव हेवाट लावणे िनयम 1971 ितल िनयम 37 ( जिमनी या लहान पटट्यांची िव हेवाट लावणे) तरतदु ीनस ु ार शा त भोगवट्या या अिधकारासह वषर् 2010 म ये दे यात आलेला होता.सबब यांचे भूखडं ाचे लागत असलेला लहान जिमनी या तक ु ड्याची वतंत्रपणे िव हेवाट लावणे शक्य नस यामळ ु े यांनी तो भोगािधकार मू यानस ु ार वाटप कर याची िवनंती के ली होती.8. अपीलाथीर् चे या वाटपा बाबत कोणताही आक्षेप नाही तथािप िनवासी प्रयोजनासाठी दे यात आले या पट्ट्याचा वापरात 35 | P a g e     . हा भूखंड यांना गावठाण वाढ योजनेम ये वाटप झालेला होता. या वाट्िपत भूखंडाचे बाजूला लागून ी जय वाल यांचा भूखडं क्रं 710 ( क्षेत्र : 175. यासाठी 38803/.एवढे भोगवटा मू य ी जय वाल यांनी सरकार जमा के ले आहे व यानस ु ार पट्टा व करारनामा सद्ध ु ा कर यात आला आहे. इमारतीत कोणतीही भर घालता कामा नये िकं वा तीत बदल करता कामा नये. िन कषर् 1.84 M) रिहवासी प्रयोजनासाठी काही अटी व शतीर्वर पट्ट्याने िदलेला होता. 2.65 M ) हा आहे.

ी जय वाल यांचे सोबत नमूना 12 म ये जो करारनामा कर यात आलेला आहे यातील शतर् क्रं. ही परवानगी यांनी 24/6/2013 रोजीचे आदेशाने िदले आहे यामळ ु े या िदवशीचे यापारी प्रयोजनासाठीचे भोगवटा मू य भ न घेणे क्रमप्रा आहे या मतास मी 36 | P a g e     .बदल क न यापारी प्रयोजनासाठी परवानगी देणे चक ु ीचे व बेकायदेशीर आहे असे अिपलाथीर्चे हणणे आहे. उपिवभागीय अिधकार्यानी वापरात बदलाची परवानगी 24/6/2013 चे आदेशानस ु ार िदली आहे. 6. या शतीर्नस ु ार ी जय वाल यांनी तहिसलदार माफर्त उपिवभागीय अिधकार्यांना परवानगी मािगतली व उपिवभागीय अिधकार्यानी रीतसर चौकशी क न अशी परवानगी िदले असे आढळून येते. “ वापर: िज हािधकारी यांचे पूवर् मंजूरी खेरीज उक्त जिमनीचा व यावर उभारले या िकं वा उभार यात जाणार्या इमारतीची िनवासी खेरीज कोण याही इतर प्रयोजनासाठी वापर करणार नाही िकं वा वापर कर यास परवानगी देणार नाही. व या आदेशा िव द्ध प्र ततु अपील मा यापढु े िवचाराधीन आहे. 2 म ये खालील प्रमाणे नमूद के ले आहे. 4.” 5. 3. मात्र अशी वापरात बदलाचे परवानगी दे यापूवीर् यापारी प्रयोजनासाठी आव यक असलेले भोगवटा मू य संबिधतकडून भ न घेणे आव यक होते ते मात्र भ न घेतलेले नाही असे िनदशर् नास येते.

अपीलाथीर् यांनी िदवाणी यायालयातील प्रकरणाचा जो संदभर् िदला आहे या प्रकरणात कोणताही थिगती आदेश िदसून येत नाही. महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अिधिनयम. 9. 8. मी पढु ील प्रमाणे आदेश देत आहे 37 | P a g e     .आलेलो आहे.सदर प्रकरण वापरात बदलाची परवानगी बाबत नाही व याची दखल उपिवभागीय अिधकार्यानी यांचे आदेशात घेतलेली आहे. 7. २५७ व कलम २४३ नस ु ार.महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अिधिनयमातील सरकारी जिमनी या िव हेवाट लाव या स बधी या तरतदु ी व यानस ु ार मी काढलेले िन कषर् यांचा बारकाईने अ यास क न. अपीलाथीर् ने उपि थत के ले या इतर मु यात महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अधींिनयमतील तरतदु ी िकं वा महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल –सरकारी जिमनीची िव हेवाट लावणे िनयम 1971 मधील संबिधत िनयमाचा संदभर् न िद यामळ ु े मला ते िवचारकरणे योग्य वाटत नाहीत. सबब उपिवभागीय अिधकार्यांचे आदेशात तसा अंशतः बदल करणे आव यक आहे. १९६६ चे कलम २५५. लोअर कोटार् चे अिभलेख. अिपलािथर् नी व उ र्-वािदनी मांडलेले मु े व सादर के लेले परु ावे .

2. 3. सदर आदेश आज िदनांक 05 स टबर 2014 रोजी खु या यायालयात जाहीर कर यात आला. 4.आदेश 1. o=Personal.09.05 14:38:41 +05'30' अपर िज हािधकारी वधार् 38 | P a g e     .84 चौ मीटर जागेवर यावसाियक प्रयोजनासाठी अकृिषक आकारणी िनि त करावी व याच प्रमाणे ‘सरकारी जिमनीची िव हेवाट लावणे िनयम 1971 मधील िनयम 37 (अ) व (ब) सदर जागेचे आजचे बाजार मू यानस ु ार यापारी प्रयोजनासाठी लागू असलेले भोगािधकार मू य िनि त क न िश लक रक्कम वसूल क न घ्यावी.com/adcwardha या संकेत थळावर पाह यासाठी उपल ध आहे. postalCode=442001. st=Maharashtra. सदर आदेश www. उपिवभागीय अिधकारी िहंगनघाट यांचे िदनांक 24/6/2013 चे आदेशात खालील प्रमाणे सधु ारणा कर यात येत आहे. अपीलाथीर् ी योगेश वभेर् व इतर 2 यांचे अपील फे टाळ यात येत आहे. तहिसलदार िहंगनघाट यांनी प्रकरणात महारा ट्र जमीन महसूल अधींिनयमचे कलम 44 नस ु ार 80. serialNumber=9ab93826c3b83b437 618a75fe62c8536d39991a87b199af d6804b8c02de64d01. वधार् िदनांक 05 स टबर 2014 SANJAY MADHUKAR BHAGWAT Digitally signed by SANJAY MADHUKAR BHAGWAT DN: c=IN. दा याचे खचार्बाबत आदेश नाहीत 5.scribd. cn=SANJAY MADHUKAR BHAGWAT Date: 2014. 6.