Heard Mr.Mehul H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have not committed any breach of conditions, as petitioners Nos.2 and 3 have paid the amount prevalent 20 times of the assessment of the land revenue as conversion charges from new tenure to old tenure on 12.11.1982; therefore, in principle, permission for conversion of the land has been granted on the said date. The formal order in this regard has been passed on 30.11.1982. In between, on 14.11.1982 to petitioner No.3 executed an Agreement to Sell for half share of the land in question from the land bearing Revenue Survey No.318 paiki to petitioner No.1. Revenue Entry No.1186 was mutated in this regard on 01.09.1985. However, the actual possession of land was transferred in favour of the father of petitioner No.1 only in the year 1986-1987. It is further submitted that in this view of the matter, as no breach of conditions has taken place, notice issued to the petitioners after a delay of eight years on 16.05.1990 is unreasonable and untenable in law. The learned advocate for the petitioners further contents that on 14.11.1982, merely an Agreement to Sell has been executed, which does not amount to a sale or transfer of property, as it is only an intention to sell. On that date, the possession was not handed over to the petitioners, therefore, on this ground as well, it cannot be said that there has been a breach of condition. It is further submitted that powers under Section 79(A) of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879 have been exercised. This section provides for summary eviction of a person who is unauthorizedly occupying land. It is the case of the petitioners that he is not in unauthorized occupation of the land, therefore, the action of the Revenue Authorities under this provision of law is not sustainable.
Issue Notice, returnable on 21.03.2012.
Status-quo, as it exits today, qua the land in question be maintained till then.
(Smt.
Abhilasha Kumari, J.) rakesh/ Top