Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 747 (BOM)

Vishnu Keshav Sanap v. Bhagwan Vithoba Tngale

2011-07-01

R.M.SAVANT

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 6th July, 1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, by which order the revision application filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein came to be allowed and the revenue entries in question came to be set aside. 2. The facts necessary to be cited for decision in the above petition can be stated thus. The petitioner herein along with his brother Subhash Sanap claims to be in possession of Survey No.91/1, 91/2, admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas at Mouza Khalegaon, Taluka Lonar, District Buldhana. The said survey numbers were originally part of Survey No.91 owned by one Balwant Piraji Ingale and Ram Piraji Ingale. At present the said survey number bears Gat No.547. 3. It appears that Vithoba alias Anand Ingale i.e. the father of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 along with the respondent No.3 moved an application before the Naib Tahsildar, Lonar for correction of the entries in the crop statement for the years 1966-67and 1967-68 inter alia claiming entries to be made qua Survey No.91/2, admeasuring 6 acres and 28 gunthas. It appears that the proceedings were remitted back to the Naib Tahsildar for fresh enquiry and were registered as a case No. APP5/3/198687, the Naib Tahsildar, Lonar rejected the said application of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and maintaining the name of the petitioner as the holder in the Revenue Record. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 thereafter challenged the said order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mehkar by filing Revenue Appeal No.RCS 59/5/1991-92. The said appeal was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 30th June, 1992. Thereafter the respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed a further appeal which was numbered as Appeal No.RTN59/Khalegaon/8/1991-92 before the Additional Collector, Buldhana, which was also dismissed by the Additional Collector by his order dated 31/03/1994. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of their appeal, the responuent Nos.1 to 3 preferred revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 before the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, which was numbered as Revision No. 1/RTS/ 59/1994-95. The said revision came to be allowed by the impugned order and the Additional Commissioner set aside all the orders passed by the Courts below i.e. the authorities below in respect of the mutation entries in respect of Survey No.91/2. The said revision came to be allowed by the impugned order and the Additional Commissioner set aside all the orders passed by the Courts below i.e. the authorities below in respect of the mutation entries in respect of Survey No.91/2. The gist of the reasoning of the Additional Commissioner was that the issue of title arises for consideration in the revenue proceedings and since it is not within the competence of the Revenue Courts to embark upon an exercise of deciding the title, and since the matter was sub judice before the Civil Court, the Additional Commissioner was of the view that it would be just and proper to maintain the status quo by setting aside all the orders and await the outcome of the civil proceedings. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the Additional Commissioner was right in awaiting the outcome of the civil proceedings which would decide the title between the parties, he ought not to have set aside the orders which were in favour of the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the orders which were in favour of the petitioner's ought to have been maintained by the Additional Commissioner. 5. Per Contra, it is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the entry made in favour of the petitioner in the Revenue Record was on account of the extraneous influence that has been exercised by a political functionary and, therefore, the Additional Commissioner was right in coming to a conclusion that the said entry could not be maintained. The learned counsel for the respondents would contend that since the parties were before the Civil Court, asserting their respective rights to title of the property in question, the Additional Commissioner was right in awaiting the outcome of the said proceedings. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, in my view, the order of the Additional Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be faulted with. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, in my view, the order of the Additional Commissioner in the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be faulted with. Admittedly, the parties are before the Civil Court agitating their rights in respect of the title to the land in question i.e. Survey No.91/12, it is trite that the entries in the Revenue Record are only for fiscal purposes and that the dispute as regards the title to the property can only be settled by way of civil proceedings. In view of the fact that the civil proceedings are yet pending, the Additional Commissioner was right in observing that it would be in the fitness of things to await the outcome of the said civil proceedings. In so far as the entry, which was in favour of the petitioner, is concerned, the Additional Commissioner has found it fit to set aside the said entry on the ground mentioned in the order viz. that the said entry was made on account of political influence. No exception could be had to the said finding of the Additional Commissioner. 7. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the challenge to the impugned order dated 6th July 1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. 8. Needless to say that the civil proceedings involved by way of Regular Civil Suit No.224/1971 would be tried on its own merits and in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the observations made in the instant judgment. Petition Dismissed.