Bombay HC in Govardhan Meshram vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [03.08.2021]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 

AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. 

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2714 OF 2021 

Govardhan Mahadeo Meshram -Vs- State of Maharashtra and ors. 

Ms. Rani Nitnaware, counsel for the petitioner. 

Ms. N.P. Mehta, A.G.P for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. 

CORAM : SUNIL B.SHUKRE & ANIL S.KILOR, JJ.

DATE : 03.08.2021

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is claiming that he is an ex-serviceman and also landless labourer and a person belonging to scheduled caste and therefore, he is entitled to allotment of E- class land, which is a Gairan land on lease.

3. Such case of the petitioner is not covered by the ratio of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and ors., reported in (2011) 11 SCC 396 and does also not fall in the exceptions carved out in Section 22A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In order to avail of the protection granted to certain categories of persons as laid down in the case of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab (supra), the claimant must be a person, who has already been granted lease under some Government Notification and that such lease must Kavita be granted to him on the ground that he is a landless labourer or a member of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The other exception made in the case of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab (supra) is that of a lease already granted to a school or dispensary or any other public utility.

4. In the present case, basically no lease of E-class land has been granted to the petitioner, and if this is so, the question of considering the claim of the petitioner on the touch stone of Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab (supra) would not arise. This is more so because Section 22A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 bars the diversion of E-class land for any private use. There is no dispute about the fact that the allotment of E-class land has been claimed by the petitioner for private use.

5. This is also the view taken by us in a recent judgment delivered in a bunch of Writ Petition Nos. 2552, 2553, 2555 and 2557 of 2021, decided on 26/07/2021. There is no substance in the petition, the petition stands summarily dismissed. No costs. 

                (ANIL S. KILOR,J)                                                             (SUNIL B. SHUKRE,J)