Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1595 (BOM)

Manish Manohar Bang v. State of Maharashtra

2014-07-23

A.P.BHANGALE

body2014
JUDGMENT:- Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Petitioners claim that they are purchasers of suit property survey number 20, area 6.41 HR situated at mouza Pipla under registered sale deed dated 31.10.2005. Land was sold out by respondent no. 14 Public Trust after obtaining due permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to respondents no. 7 to 13. Petitioners, in turn, purchased the suit land from respondents no. 7 to 13. It is alleged that one Rodba Ramchandra Mali, owner of adjacent land, manipulated revenue record and claimed to be tenant over the suit field. There were proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and outcome thereof was that, name of Rodba Ramchandra Mali as a tenant came to be deleted. After deletion of his name, Trustees of respondent no. 14 entered into two agreements for sale with Rodba. However, before execution of sale deed, Rodba Mali died and his legal heirs also did not obtain sale deed. Moreover, though mandatory, no permission from the Charity Commissioner was obtained by the Trust to sell the suit land in favour of Rodba Mali. Manohar son of Rodba Mali tampered revenue record and managed to enter his name in revenue record. That entry was challenged by the Trust and the Trust succeeded to get the name of Manohar deleted. That entry has attained finality because nobody challenged the same. Thereafter respondent no. 14 Trust obtained permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner to sell the land; offers were invited by tender notice; offer of respondents no. 7 to 13 was accepted and land was sold to them and from them, petitioners purchased the suit land, as aforesaid. Nalu widow of Manohar Shende and Waman Rodba Shende filed application under Section 36 (2) of the BPT Act in the year 2003 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner for revocation of permission granted to respondent no. 14 for sale of suit land. The Assistant Charity Commissioner rejected the said application with liberty to respondents no. 5 and 6 to agitate their grievance by filing appropriate civil suit. On 2.11.2002 respondents no. 5 and 6 filed application under Section 91 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act to get her rights in the agricultural land decided. Application was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2003 by the Tahsildar against which respondents no. On 2.11.2002 respondents no. 5 and 6 filed application under Section 91 read with Sections 100 and 101 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act to get her rights in the agricultural land decided. Application was allowed vide order dated 30.6.2003 by the Tahsildar against which respondents no. 7 to 13 filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur who by order dated 31.5.2005 allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the SDO, respondents no. 5 and 6 filed revision under Section 111 of the Tenancy Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 11th April 2011 allowed the revision and confirmed the order of the Tahsildar dated 30.6.2003 holding respondents no. 5 and 6 entitled for conferral of ownership rights over the suit land and declaring their right to purchase it in accordance with the price determined. Present petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 3608 of 2011 before this Court. Learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 made a statement that order dated 30.6.2003 passed by the Tahsildar was restricted only to the mutation entries to be carried in the names of respondents no. 5 and 6 and hence, reference to Section 121 (2) of the Tenancy Act in the said order was wrong. In view of that statement, this Court observed that none of the observations made by any of the Authorities below in the orders impugned deciding question of tenancy, conferral of ownership etc. except to the extent of directing the mutation entries to be made in the names of respondents no. 5 and 6, shall come in the way of the parties in prosecuting the other remedies, as are available in law. This Court while dismissing the writ petition clarified that the mutation entries by themselves do not confer any right, title and interest upon the parties, and hence the parties are at liberty to prosecute the other remedies, as are available in law, to establish their rights. 3. In view of the clarification and observation made in order dated 1st October 2013 by this Court in WP No. 3608 of 2011, neither of the parties have pointed out to me that any steps for conferral of ownership, tenancy have been taken. However, petitioners filed application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal seeking review of its judgment and order dated 11.4.2011. However, petitioners filed application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal seeking review of its judgment and order dated 11.4.2011. Since delay was caused in filing review application, petitioners filed application for condonation of delay. According to them, delay was caused due to the period undergone in prosecuting remedy of writ petition. Learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, passed judgment and order dated 6th May 2014 and thereby rejected application for condonation of delay caused in filing review petition. It is against this judgment & order that the present writ petition is filed. 4. It is brought to my notice by learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 that petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No. 643 of 2011 for declaration and permanent injunction and the same is pending. It is further pointed out to me that the Tahsildar (Gramin). Nagpur vide order dated 17th February 2014 has rejected application of respondent no. 5 and legal representatives of respondent no. 6 to enter their names as legal representatives of tenant Rodba. 5. I have gone through the application filed before the Tribunal for condonation of delay as also the impugned order. This Court, after dismissal of writ petition, would not have allowed the course of seeking review of the order made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, in view of the clarification and observation made by this Court in its order dated 1st October 2013 while dismissing WP No. 3608 of 2011 without observing anything on merit, it would not be appropriate to restrain the petitioners from questioning jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Period undergone in prosecuting writ petition no. 3608 of 2011 shall have to be ignored. This Court holds that sufficient cause was made out by petitioners for belated filing of review petition. Hence, application for condonation of delay will have to be allowed. 6. In the result, impugned judgment & order dated 6th May 2014 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No. REW/TNC/NGP-32/2013 is quashed and set aside. Application for condonation of delay caused in filing review application filed by petitioner is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to decide review petition on its own merit after hearing both the parties. Parties undertake to appear before the Tribunal on 31st July 2014. The Tribunal shall decide the review application within two months from the date of appearance of parties before it. The Tribunal is directed to decide review petition on its own merit after hearing both the parties. Parties undertake to appear before the Tribunal on 31st July 2014. The Tribunal shall decide the review application within two months from the date of appearance of parties before it. Rule is made absolute in these terms with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.