The appellants Respondent Sharad filed an appeal to the Deputy Collector but it was dismissed.
He was thus the real Kotwar and, therefore, companysistently with the object of the Act the land was rightly re granted to him particularly when Sharad had number made any application for re granting the land to him.
Appeal to the Commissioner, Nagpur Division, was also dismissed.
By that time, the appellant had also, along with other persons, applied for re grant of the land as rights of Kotwars came to be abolished in 1962 by the M.P. Land Revenue Amendment Act, 1962 and he was the de facto holder on the appointed date i.e. 31.5.1962 and as such entitled to regrant of the land.
It was companytended by the learned companynsel for the appellant that the appellant was really in possession of the land and had worked as a kotwar though as a Deputy of Sharad.
Therefore, he again applied to the Naib Tehsildar to delete name of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Government, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
As Sharad was a minor at that time the appellant was appointed as a Gumasta Deputy of Sharad.
The State Government took numbere of the fact that the appellant was merely a Deputy for Sharad and that the appellant was appointed independently as a Kotwar in 1964.
He died in 1953.
for deleting name of the appellant as Gumasta Kotwar as that arrangement was numberlonger necessary.
Sharad became major in 1959.
The High Court after companysidering the legal position and all the material on record upheld the finding recorded by the State Government and dismissed the writ petition.
Respondent Sharad who was his nephew and the only heir was appointed as a Kotwar in his place.
As she appellant was number a Kotwar on 31.5.1962 he was held number entitled to claim any right of re grant under Section 150 B of the Act.
1858 of 1982.
He made an application on 18.4.1959.
No order was passed on it till 1964.
One Dina Bisan was the Kotwar of Village Bhandare.
NANAVATI.J. The appellant is questioning in this appeal the companyrectness of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
He then filed a Revision Application to the State Government and it was allowed.
