1) Heard finally with consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties.

2) By the present petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 03.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Chief Secretary and Special Officer, Revenue and Forest Department in Appeal No.2023/C.No.229/J-9,C. No.20(01)/AVP.

3) The controversy in the present petition pertains to the following properties:-

                    I. Land admeasuring 0.60 H.R., being a part of Survey No.9, Village Risod, Tahsil and District Washim.

                    II. Plot admeasuring 6400 square feet (80 X 80) in Survey No.3, Village Risod, Tahsil and District Washim.

                    III. Plot admeasuring 10,000 square feet (100 X 100) in Survey No.3, Village Risod, Tahsil and District Washim.

Now, Village Risod is a Tahsil in Washim district.

4) According to the petitioner, the aforesaid lands were allotted to his father, late Rajaram Shejul, under three separate documents issued by the Tahsildar Risod in Form-G issued as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1954 (hereinafter referred as, “the MPLR Code” for brevity) and Section 31 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred as "the MLR Code" for brevity). Two separate proceedings were registered according to the petitioner in relation to request of his father for allotment of lands. According to the petitioner, the land admeasuring 6,400 square feet (80 X 80) and 10,000 square feet (100 X 100), in Survey No.3, was allotted in a proceeding registered as LNA/22/46/79-80, whereas the land admeasuring 0.60 H.R. in Survey No.9 was allotted in case registered as LNA/22/35/79-80. The petitioner states that lands admeasuring 6400 square feet, 10,000 square feet and 0.60 H.R. were allotted for consideration of Rs.150/-, Rs.250/- and Rs.600/-, respectively. The petitioner contends that the lands were allotted by following proper procedure pursuant to orders passed by competent authority. The foundation of the claim of the petitioner is the aforesaid G-Forms and extracts of register of cases in which entry regarding allotment is recorded.

5) The petitioner has contended that initially land allotted to his father and similar other allottees was sought to be allotted to a Co-operative Society and that the father of the petitioner had raised an objection dated 09.10.1986 addressed to the Tahsildar Risod. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to this letter of objection, Tahsildar, Risod had issued a communication dated 27.10.1986 calling upon him to collect the G-Forms of the allotted lands and also assuring that the lands which are allotted to him will not be allotted to any other entity.

6) The father of the petitioner has expired on 06.12.2011. After his demise, the petitioner approached the Tahsildar with a request to carry out mutation with respect to the aforesaid lands in his name. Pursuant to the said representations by the petitioner, inter se communications were issued between the officers of the Revenue Department, which indicate that the G-Forms were, in fact, issued with respect to the lands in question. The higher authorities had called for reports from their subordinates and the reports issued indicate that the records were verified and that the G-Forms relied upon by the petitioner were found to be genuine and that it was also found that relevant entries with respect to allotment of lands were recorded in the register, extract of which is relied upon by the petitioner. As regards deposit of the amount, on an enquiry from Treasury Office, it was learnt that the records were destroyed after obtaining permission from the competent authority and as such challan or other evidence regarding payment of the amounts is not available. The Sub-Divisional Officer (hereinafter, “the SDO” for brevity) forwarded a report to the Collector with respect to two plots in Survey No.3, admeasuring 6400 square feet and 10,000 square feet stating that mutation of name of the petitioner can be recorded with respect to the said two plots.

7) It will be pertinent to state that the piece of land admeasuring 6400 square feet is a part of larger portion of land admeasuring 1300 square meters, which was being claimed by Municipal Council, Risod for establishing a shopping complex. The Tahsildar, Risod had made a recommendation for allotment of the said land for the purpose of establishing shopping complex.

8) The petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No.821 of 2021 seeking direction against the respondent-authorities to record mutation entry of his name with respect to the aforesaid properties. This Court refrained from entertaining the petition by recording statement of the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the concerned Tahsildar shall look into the grievance raised by the petitioner. The petition accordingly came to be disposed of vide order dated 18.02.2021.

9) A day before, the Collector, Washim had passed an order dated 11.02.2021 making allotment of 1300 square meters land in favour of Municipal Council for establishing commercial complex. This 1300 square meter land included plot admeasuring 6400 square feet claimed by the petitioner. The said order dated 11.02.2021 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021.

10) Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the said petition, viz. Collector, SDO and Tahsildar, filed affidavit in reply dated 12.05.2021 under signature of the Nayab Tahsildar. The G-Forms on which reliance is placed by the petitioner were accepted as a part of record in the said reply. In paragraph 25 of the reply affidavit, it is stated that although the land was allotted to father of the petitioner in Bhumiswami rights upon payment as directed, mutation entries in revenue records were not recorded. It was thereafter stated that the land allotted to the Municipal Council included 6400 square feet plot allotted to father of the petitioner. It was further stated in the affidavit-in-reply that mutation with respect to the said land could be recorded in favour of the petitioner, if so directed.

11) The said petition came to be decided vide order dated 09.03.2022. This Court has recorded that the fact that the said 6400 square feet plot was allotted to the father of the petitioner in Bhumiswami rights was accepted in the reports prepared by the Tahsildar and SDO and the said fact was further reiterated in the affidavit-in-reply filed under signature of the Nayab Tahsildar. It is thereafter recorded that the petitioner did not challenge the decision to allot the land to the Municipal Council and merely raised grievance that the allotment of land was without hearing him and, accordingly, his rights were prejudiced. This Court, therefore, granted leave to the petitioner to make appropriate representation for excluding his land from the 1300 square meters lands allotted to the Municipal Council and directed the Collector to decide the representation after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the Municipal Council. With respect to the prayer for mutation, this Court referred to paragraph 32 of the reply affidavit, wherein it was stated that mutation entry could be recorded if so directed, and accordingly, directions for recording mutation entries were issued.

12) The Collector decided the representation dated 14.03.2022 made by the petitioner vide order dated 20.05.2022, whereby land was allotted to the Municipal Council excluding 6400 square feet land claimed by the petitioner. Directions were also issued to the Tahsildar to record mutation entries in favour of the petitioner as per the G-Forms issued in favour of his father.

13) The Tahsildar passed order dated 27.05.2022 directing the subordinate Revenue Officers to record entries with respect to all the three lands, i.e. two plots admeasuring 6400 square feet and 10,000 square feet and other land admeasuring 0.60 H.R., in the name of petitioner as Bhogwatdar Class-II/Occupant Class-II.

14) The petitioner challenged the said order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Tahsildar by filing appeal before the SDO, raising a contention that mutation entry should have been recorded as Bhumiswami/Occupant Class-I. The SDO declined to entertain the appeal vide order/communication dated 20.06.2022, stating that jurisdiction to consider conversion of land from Class-II to Class-I was not vested with the said authority.

15) The petitioner, therefore, filed Second Appeal before the Collector. The Collector dismissed the appeal vide order/communication dated 25.07.2022, stating that land bearing Gat No.3/1 was recorded in the Government records as E-Class Government land and, therefore, if the petitioner wanted the land to be recorded in his name in Class-I rights, it was necessary for him to make appropriate application and seek orders in that regard from the competent authority.

16) Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders refusing to record the land in the name of the petitioner in Class-I rights, the petitioner filed revision under Section 257 of the MLR Code before the Additional Commissioner being Revision Application No.271/LNA-22/Risod/Washim/2022. The said Revision Application came to be allowed vide order dated 22.12.2022.

17) The Revisional Authority directed to record all three lands in the name of the petitioner as Occupant Class-I. The foundation of the order passed by the Revisional Authority are the G-Forms issued in the name of the petitioner's father, according to which the said three lands were allotted in Bhumiswami rights. It is recorded in the order that there was no dispute with respect to the fact that the allotment of lands in favour of father of the petitioner was in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

18) The State of Maharashtra filed application for review under section 258 of the MLR Code before the Commissioner, which came to be registered as Review Application No.84/LNA-22/Risod/Washim/2023. The respondents had sought review of the order on the ground that names of all persons to whom plots were allotted in Survey No.3 were recorded as Occupants Class-II. It was contended that the order directing recording of name as Occupant Class-I was passed without taking into consideration Section 29(3) of the MLR Code. Issues were also raised with respect to legality of the allotment on the ground that the allotment was shown to be made as per G-form, which was issued under the provisions of MP Land Revenue Code, 1954, although the lands in question were governed by the MLR Code, 1966. The contention is that the alleged allotment being under a non-existent provision is non-est.

19) The application for review came to be rejected vide order dated 25.08.2023. The application was rejected recording that the grounds set up in the application for review were not good grounds for review.

20) Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Additional Commissioner directing to record entry in the name of petitioner as Occupant Class-I and also rejecting the application for review, the respondents/State filed revision before the State Government, in which questions regarding the legality of the allotment of lands in favour of the father of the petitioner were raised. It was contended that the G-Forms were issued as per provisions of MPLR Code, which had no application and further that the power to make allotment of land under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Disposal Rules” for brevity) is vested with the Collector and that the said power was never delegated to the Tahsildar. It was contended that the record also created grave suspicion regarding the alleged allotment of land in favour of father of the petitioner.

21) The revision came to be allowed vide order dated 03.03.2025 passed by the Additional Secretary. The operative order passed by the Additional Secretary provides for the following:-

                    i. Orders passed by the Additional Commissioner directing record in mutation with respect to suit properties in favour of petitioner as Occupant Class-I came to be quashed and set aside.

                    ii. Directions issued by the Collector vide order dated 20.05.2022 for recording mutation entry in name of the petitioner as per G-Forms came to be revoked.

                    iii. Order dated 27.05.2022 passed by the Tahsildar for mutation of the name of petitioner with respect to suit property came to be cancelled.

                    iv. Mutation entry Nos.1507 and 9929 in favour of the petitioner were cancelled.

                    v. Directions were issued to the Collector to examine as to whether G-Forms were issued after following the due process of law or not and to take appropriate action in accordance with conclusions arrived at in the inquiry.

                    vi. Directions are also issued to examine as to whether G-Forms are illegally issued in similar other cases.

22) The Additional Secretary has recorded that except for the G-Forms and case register, there was no other record, such as record and proceedings of the case, copy of order, copy of challan regarding deposit of amount, etc., with respect to allotment of land. It is held that while issuing directions to the Tahsildar to record mutation entries in accordance with G-Forms, the record and proceedings in relation to the said G-Forms were not examined by the Collector. It is recorded that the suit properties are non-agricultural lands and, therefore, it was necessary to deal with the allotment in accordance with the Rules under Part V of the MLR Land Disposal Rules. It is held that authority to make allotment of land under the relevant Rules is vested with the Collector and further that there is no material on record to indicate that permission of Collector was obtained prior to issuance of G-Forms and further that agreement in the prescribed form as per Rule 42 was also not executed. While dealing with the reasons recorded by the Additional Commissioner, the Additional Secretary has recorded that the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code have come into force with effect from 15.08.1967 and, as per Section 336 of the MLR Code, MPLR Code stood repealed. It is observed that G-Forms were issued on 22.12.1980 after provisions of MPLR Code had ceased to operate, and, therefore, the G-Forms prima facie appeared to be issued without any authority of law. The aforesaid order for cancellation of mutation entry and directions for fresh enquiry are issued in the light of the said reasons.

23) Mr. Harish Dangre, learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently argues that allotment of land in favour of petitioner's father cannot be disputed in view of G-Forms and the entries in the relevant registers. He contends that the entries in the registers will indicate that a proceeding was registered pursuant to application for allotment of land, the said application was considered and orders regarding allotment of lands were passed upon determination of appropriate consideration and only thereafter G-Forms have been issued in favour of the petitioner. The learned advocate would contend that genuineness of the G-Forms is repeatedly verified by the concerned officers upon specific instructions of their superiors. He draws attention to letter dated 27.10.1986 issued by the Nayab Tahsildar asking the Petitioner's father to collect the G-forms, report dated 30.11.2019 issued by Awwal Karkoon, report dated 27.05.2020 issued by the Tahsildar to the Collector, affidavit filed by the respondents in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021 and the order dated 20.05.2022 passed by the Collector directing allotment of land in favour of the Municipal Council excluding the 6400 square feet land allotted to the petitioner. The learned advocate also draws attention to plant in Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 2020 filed by the State of Maharashtra through Collector and the Tahsildar, Risod, wherein the fact of allotment of land in favour of Petitioner's father and issuance of G-Forms is admitted. The learned advocate would contend that in view of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021, the issue of allotment of land is conclusively settled and could not have been reopened by the Secretary. He argues that the principles of res judicata have been completely ignored by the Additional Secretary. It is also argued that the order impugned is contrary to the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021. Apart from this, the learned advocate would contend that an order to record a mutation in the name of the petitioner as Occupant Class-II was passed by the Tahsildar and that the respondent-authorities did not assail the said order and, as such, in a proceeding initiated by him for recording the mutation entry as Occupant Class-I, order to cancel the mutation entry completely could not have been passed. The learned advocate, therefore, contends that the impugned order is completely unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

24) Per Contra, Mr. Chauhan, the learned Senior Advocate and Government Pleader, supports the impugned order. His contention is that the provisions of MPLR Code ceased to operate with effect from 15.08.1967. The learned Government Pleader contends that there was no question of making allotment of any land in G-Form in the year 1980, since the said form is a statutory form for allotment prescribed under the provisions of the MPLR Code, provisions whereof were not applicable as on the date of alleged allotment. The learned senior advocate would contend that the alleged allotment is a nullity. He also argues that the power to make allotment of land under the MLR Code is vested with the Collector and not the Tahsildar. The learned advocate submits that, since the order is without jurisdiction, it is void ab initio and a nullity in the eyes of law, as such, it may not be separately challenged by instituting any legal proceeding and that illegality thereof, can be set up as a defence in any collateral proceeding in which the reliance on the said G-Form is placed. Apart from this, it is contended that in other cases where similar G-Forms are issued in Risod, orders regarding allotment of lands and entire record and proceedings of the case have been traced and that in the present case, such record could not be found.

25) I have considered the rival submissions as aforesaid. It must be stated that the genuineness of the G-Forms cannot be disputed by the respondents. In this regard, it will be appropriate to state that certified copies of the G-Forms are issued by the concerned office to the petitioner.

26) There are entries in the register of revenue cases with respect to issuance of G-Forms. It appears from reading of the extract of register that father of the petitioner had made application dated 23.11.1979 for allotment of 0.60 H.R. land in Survey No. 9 and application dated 10.01.1980 for allotment of 2 plots admeasuring 6400 square feet and 10,000 square feet. It appears from perusal of the register that similar G-Forms were issued in favour of other persons as well upon registration of appropriate revenue cases. The respondents have themselves filed copies of various G-Forms issued in favour of different individuals. It appears that such G-Forms were issued in favour of other independents as well. Most importantly, in the affidavit-in-reply filed before this Court in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021, also the veracity of G-Forms is not challenged. Rather issuance of G-Forms is admitted as a matter of record. Similarly, in the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No.129 of 2020 also, the respondents have specifically stated that the land forming subject matter of the said suit, i.e., plots admeasuring 6400 square feet and 10,000 square feet, were already allotted to the father of the petitioner by issuing G-Forms in his name. The said suit was filed by the respondent/State of Maharashtra through the Collector and the Tahsildar in order to challenge judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior division, Washim in Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2005. Regular Civil Suit No.2 of 2005 was filed by six individuals claiming that they were in occupation of portion of certain plots in Gat No.3 on the basis of lease deed executed in their favour by the Risod Taluka Sale Purchase and Processing Cooperative Society. The said suit was decreed in favour of the said plaintiffs. The plaintiffs/ respondents in the present petition challenged the said decree by filing the aforesaid civil suit. In the said suit, title of the society which had let the property to the said six persons (plaintiffs in RCS No. 2 of 2005) itself was challenged. It is in this regard that a statement is made in the said plaint that the two plots admeasuring 6400 square feet and 10,000 square feet were already allotted to father of the petitioner.

27) In the light of aforesaid reasons, the authenticity of G-Forms cannot be disputed. It is repeatedly found that the G-Forms and register of cases relied upon on which reliance is placed by the petitioner are copies of original documents available in concerned Government records. Repeated inquiry reports have confirmed this fact. As stated above, this fact is also confirmed in affidavit filed before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1558 of 2021 and in the said civil suit.

28) Whereas the respondents contend that the allotment of petitioner is a nullity, being an act without jurisdiction, the contention of petitioner is that the land was allotted to his father by following prescribed procedure and that this fact is confirmed by the authorities repeatedly and moreover, this Court, also has vide order dated 09.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021, accepted the G-Forms and has directed the authorities to act in accordance with the statement made in affidavit-in-reply in the said petition that mutation with respect to suit property will be carried out.

29) Having said so, it must be stated that G-Form is a statutory form with respect to allotment of land under the provisions of the MPLR Code. The MPLR Code was applicable to the Vidarbha region prior to its merger with the State of Bombay (now state of Maharashtra). The MPLR Code continued to apply to Vidarbha region even after its merger with the State of Maharashtra till commencement of the MLR Code. Section 336 (f) of the MLR Code repealed the MPLR Code, 1954, with respect to its operation to Vidarbha Region. The G-Forms on the basis of which right is claimed over the suit properties are dated 22.12.1980.

30) Perusal of the registers will indicate that applications for allotment of land were made on 23.11.1979 and 10.01.1980. The applications for allotment of lands and the G-Forms are made after the MPLR Code had ceased to apply in view of its express repeal under the MLR Code.

31) Perusal of the registers will indicate that the lands were allotted to the father of the petitioner in view of his encroachment over the same. The petitioner has also, in his representations to the authorities, stated that the allotment of lands in question was sought for the purpose of residence and occupation and that the said lands were under encroachment.

32) As stated above, disposal of Government lands is regulated by the provisions of the Land Disposal Rules. Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V of the Land Disposal Rules provide for disposal of lands for educational, charitable or public purposes, agricultural purposes, non-agricultural purposes and grant of land for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes in cases of encroachments. Whereas the provisions of Part III will demonstrate that the allotment of land for agricultural purposes can be made either by the Collector or by a Tahsildar duly authorised in that regard, the provisions of Part II, IV and V will indicate that the allotment must be made by the Collector. A provision for enabling the Tahsildar to make allotment of land is not found in Parts II, IV and V.

33) The present case should fall under Part V, since it is the case of the petitioner that the lands allotted were under encroachment by his father. Perusal of the register will also indicate that the case was considered as one of encroachment.

34) Perusal of Rule 43 will indicate that the authority to make allotment of land is vested with the Collector. The provisions will also indicate that the grant can either be in occupancy rights or in leasehold rights. The conditions for grant of lands in occupancy rights will demonstrate that the encroacher is required to execute an agreement in Form XIV. Perusal of Rule 43(a)(vi) will indicate that the encroacher is required to execute an agreement in Form XIV. This is one of the conditions for grant of encroached lands in occupancy rights.

35) However, it will also be appropriate to refer to Rule 49 of the Land Disposal Rules, which falls in Part V. It provides that where a land is granted either in occupancy rights or in leasehold rights, the Tahsildar shall issue a certificate in Form XVIII appended to the Rules. Although Tahsildar is not the competent authority for grant of land, the certificate of grant is issued under signature of Tahsildar. A possibility of certificates being granted in Form G instead of Form XVIII appended to the Land Disposal Rules cannot be ruled out. It is, therefore, necessary to find out whether the allotment of land is by the competent authority. In this regard, it must be stated that there is a reference to an order of allotment passed in the registers relied upon by the petitioner. However, the designation of the authority who has passed the order is not mentioned in the register.

36) Likewise, the G-Forms do not have any provision for mentioning the designation of the authority who has passed the order. Perusal of Form-XVIII also indicates that there is no provision for mentioning the designation of the authority who has passed order of allotment. In such circumstances, where the certificate of grant is issued under a provision which had ceased to operate, it is necessary to examine as to whether the allotment is indeed done and done by the competent authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the MLR Code and Land Disposal Rules framed thereunder. It may also be possible that although reference is not made to the provisions of MLR Land Disposal Rules, the procedure adopted may be compliant with the said statutory provisions. It is also necessary to examine a legal issue as to whether delegation of powers to the Tahsildar is permissible under Section 330-A of the MLR Code, although the Rules do not provide for the same in case of grant of land under encroachment.

37) In the peculiar facts of the case, a limited enquiry as regards authority, who has passed the order for allotment of land and whether procedure for allotment is complied with or not can be permitted to be held, as directed by the impugned order.

38) As regards the contention with respect to pleadings in earlier litigations, it must be stated that it is a well settled legal position that there cannot be any estoppel against law. Perusal of the pleadings and reports will demonstrate that reference is made to G-Forms issued in favour of father of the petitioner and on that basis statements are made with respect to allotment of lands. The pleadings in the civil suit as also in the reply affidavit before this Court are based merely on G-Forms. The aspect that G-Forms are issued after repeal of MPLR Code 1954 under which the same are issued and the consequence thereof has kept the attention while making the said pleadings. Admissions in such pleadings which are contrary to law will not be binding on the respondent/authorities.

39) As regards contention with respect to res judicata, it must be stated that this Court while deciding Writ Petition No.1558 of 2021, has not ruled on the aspect as to whether allotment of land under G-Forms can be said to be legal or valid. This Court has based its decision on the basis of the pleadings in the reply filed by respondents in the said petition. Moreover, perusal of the operative order will also demonstrate that the petitioner was granted liberty to make a representation for excluding his land from the land allotted to the Municipal Council. It is categorically observed in the judgment that the petitioner was raising a limited grievance that the allotment is made without affording opportunity of hearing to him. This Court has not held that allotment of lands in favour of petitioner under G-Forms is legal and valid allotment.

40) Apart from this, an erroneous decision on the aspect of jurisdiction does not operate as res judicata. Likewise, a pure question of law also does not operate as res judicata if the cause of action in the earlier litigation and subsequent litigation is not the same. Reference in this regard can be had to Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Ors. Vs. Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 and judgment of this Court in the case of Abhakar Ambadas Kothade Vs. Shantaram Prabhakar Kothade, 2008 (2) Mh.L.J 794

41) Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court in Writ petition No.1558 of 2021 should not operate as res judicata for a fresh enquiry as regards jurisdiction of the authority who has passed the order of allotment and the allotment being in accordance with the provisions of the MLR Code and Land Disposal Rules framed thereunder.

42) It must also be borne in mind that res judicata, although a matter of public policy relating to administration of justice, is but a matter of procedure. Therefore, if the act is completely without jurisdiction, then res judicata is not applicable. It is equally well settled that if an authority has power to perform a particular act or function and, instead of mentioning correct provision, a wrong provision is quoted, the act cannot be said to be without authority.

43) The respondents have also filed such G-Forms on record and have contended that the Government intends to hold a detailed inquiry into the matter of issuance of G-Forms. The learned Government Pleader has filed certain G-Forms along with pursis dated 04.08.2026. Along with the said pursis, certain G-Forms along with orders of allotment are annexed. The contention of the learned Government Pleader is that, in the case of the petitioner, such orders of allotment could not be found. It is already held that genuineness of G-Forms in favour of father of the petitioner well established.

44) However, since allotment is evidenced by G-Forms issued under MPLR Code, provisions whereof were not applicable as on the date of applications as also on the date of issuance of G-Forms and there is no clarity as regards other aspects such as order of allotment for the lands in question, procedure of allotment etc., a further enquiry as to whether the allotment is made as per MLR Code and Land Disposal Rules framed thereunder, and, more importantly, by competent authority to make such allotment, cannot be foreclosed.

45) However, it must be that in view of Rule 49 of the Land Disposal Rules, merely because the G-Form is issued by the Tahsildar, the authorities cannot proceed under assumption that the allotment of land is also by the Tahsildar. The Land Disposal Rules themselves provide that although allotment of land may be issued by the Collector, the relevant form of allotment has to be issued by the Tahsildar.

46) In the peculiar facts of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, inquiry into the matter and directions for holding inquiry need not be completely quashed and set aside.

47) The Collector is directed to record specific findings on the following aspects:-

                    i. Whether certificate in G-Form or Form-XVIII is conclusive evidence of allotment of land?

                    ii. Whether the order of allotment is passed by competent authority? If not, what is the consequence thereof ?

                    iii. Whether the procedure for allotment was followed in accordance with MLR Code, 1966 and Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands), Rules 1971? If not, what is the consequence thereof?

                    iv. Whether the allottee has entered into agreement with respect to the land stated to be allotted to him? If not, what is the consequence thereof ?

                    v. Who was in possession of the land prior to issuance of G-Forms and thereafter?

48) In the event the respondent-authorities intend to proceed with the said inquiry, the inquiry shall be conducted by issuing a proper notice to the petitioner with respect to the action proposed to be taken and all the grounds for taking the proposed action and the material on the basis of which such action is proposed to be taken should be disclosed to the petitioner.

49) The petitioner shall be granted adequate opportunity of hearing before taking any decision.

50) In the result, following order is passed:-

-:ORDER:-

I. Order dated 03.03.2025 passed by respondent No.2 – Additional Chief Secretary and Special Officer, Revenue and Forest Department in Appeal No.2023/C.No.229/J-9,C. No.20(01)/AVP, is modified, directing that the enquiry as directed by the said order shall be restricted to points enumerated in paragarph 47; and

II. mutation with respect to the suit properties shall be carried out in accordance with the conclusion derived after holding of the enquiry.