Ritika
Nagpur. The opposite order was issued by the Revenue Minister regarding the land in Nari acquired by Pranyas. Challenging this order of the Revenue Minister issued on 23 June 2022, Pranyas filed a petition in the High Court. After hearing this, Judge Manish Pitale issued a notice to the Secretary of the Ministry of Revenue and others and ordered them to file their reply by October 13. On behalf of the petitioner Girish Kunte, Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State Govt. MA Barbade argued. It was told in the petition that Pranyas had acquired part of the land of City Survey No. 454 located in Nari. It was also taken into his possession. After the compensation was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it was registered in the records of the City Survey on 31 August 2007 in the documents.
Acquisition in Indora Housing Accommodation Scheme
It was told in the petition that so far no one has challenged the compensation announced by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Under the Indora Housing Accommodation Scheme, Mauja Nari Survey No. 72/2, 72/5 and 72/6 land was acquired, after which the City Survey and Investigation Officer fixed the survey number 454. On 29 October 1999, this disputed land was also measured by the City Survey Department, after which it was marked in the name of Pranyas. But the defendants claimed this land by referring to the order passed by the judicial authority on 26 November 1951. On this basis, the respondents also registered their names in the city survey records for 12,550 square meters of land. The City Survey Department recorded this on 26 May 2017 even though the 7/12 document did not mention the names of these respondents. Even on the part of Pranyas land city survey number 454, the name was registered illegally.
City survey removed the name, the minister stamped
It was told in the petition that Pranyas filed an appeal with the District Superintendent of Land Records against this mistake of the City Survey. After hearing this, on 9 September 2019, the superintendent rejected the registered names of the respondents. After this, on 13 September 2019, the names of the respondents were also removed from the records of the City Survey. This order of the superintendent was challenged by the defendants before the assistant director of land records. It was rejected on 31 August 2021. The assistant director flatly refused to interfere in it. But on 23 June 2022, the Revenue Minister accepted the appeal of the respondents and issued instructions to the Land Records Department. This order of the minister was challenged by the Pranyas.
