TITLE : Shri Hanumant Baburao Neharkar v State of Maharashtra
CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Sandeep V. Marne
DATE : 22nd December, 2023
CITATION : WP No 11287 of 2018
FACTS
The petitioner challenge the order passed by the Revenue minister in Revision Application filed by the respondent. The revenue minister has set aside the order passed by the Additional Commissioner and additional collector. The land which was allotted to the Respondent 5 was allotted jointly to him and to the petitioners together. The respondent filed appeal before the additional commissioner which was rejected. The revenue minister set aside the orders passed by additional collector and held that the land is solely allocated to respondent 5 alone and the petitioners have no right title and interest in the property.
The alternate property was initially allocated to Baban who had two sons. The property should have been allotted to the sons in natural course since on the day of allocation, Baban has passed away. However, the occupancy price was paid by the respondent 5, who is a son of Baban and the land was subsequently allocated to him. The heirs of the property were aggrieved by the said decision.
LAWS INVOLVED
Misrepresentation :
Misrepresentation is an untrue statement of a fact made by one party to another which changes the course of decision. It is defined under Section 18 of the Indian Contract Act,1872.
“a misrepresentation is a form of a statement made preceding to the contract being completed. There are two varieties of statement that can be performed before a contract is formed, these will either:
- Form part of the contract.
Not form part of the contract, therefore it becomes a representation
ISSUES
Whether the sole allotment of land to Respondent 5 by the Revenue minister is valid?
JUDGEMENT
It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent that the application filed by the petitioners is barred by limitation as it was filed 25 years later the allotment. Since this was an alternate property, the statutory provisions of the Rehabilitation Act,1986 was interpreted. According to the Act, the entire family will be granted one alternate land in a beneficial zone. The court held that since the alternate land allotted in the name of Respondent 5 was obviously meant for the entire family and only for the respondent 5. The court also held that the sole allotment of Respondent 5 was an act of misinterpretation and no limitation would apply. The respondent took advantage of his father’s death and did not communicate the same to the other son about the application of allotment. The court held that the Respondent 5 acted through misrepresentation in getting the land.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran
