Bombay High Court
Sheikh Muslim Ahmed Abdul Rehman ... vs Shri Murlidhar Sitaram Gedam And ... on 5 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp3029.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3029 OF 2014
1. Sheikh Muslim Ahmed Abdul Rehman (Deceased)
1(A) Azad Ahmed Muslim Ahmed,
aged 42 years, Occ.: Agriculturist,
r/o Ward No. 8, Kazipura, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
1(B) Abdul Wahab Muslim Ahmed -DECEASED
1(B)(a) Nilofer Parveen Abdul Wahab
aged about 40 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
1(B)(b) Danish Abdul Wahab
aged 15 years, being minor,
through natural guardian mother
Nilofer Parveen Abdul Wahab
Both r/o near Madina Mosque, Wani.
1(C) Wasim Ahmed Muslim Ahmed
aged 53 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
1(D) Zabunissa Abdul Jabbar,
aged 45 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
Both r/o Ward No. 8, Kazipura,
Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. .... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
1. Murlidhar Sitaram Gedam,
aged 60 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
2. Madhukar Sitaram Gedam,
aged 50 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:04:20 :::
wp3029.14
2
3. Laxmi Sitaram Gedam,
aged 80 years, Occupation : Agriculturist
all r/o Patala, Tq. Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur.
4. Smt Triveni w/o Dadaji Madavi,
aged 70 years, r/o Kolar Pipri,
Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Smt. Kaushalya Maroti Sedam,
aged 66 years, r/o Akkapur,
Tq. Maregaon, Distt. Yavatmal.
6. Smt. Shantibai Sadashiv Kadam,
aged 65 years, r/o Nimbala,
Tq. Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur.
7. Smt. Kantabai w/o Mahadeo Kanaka,
aged 58 years, r/o Shasti, Kolgaon,
Tq. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.
8. Smt. Nanda Sadashiv Kadam,
aged 45 years, r/o Nimbala,
Tq. Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur.
9. Vithal Balaji Khapne,
aged 78 years, Agriculturist.
10. Anusaya Nilkanth Khiratkar,
aged 70 years, Occupation : Agriculturist.
Nos. 9 & 10 r/o Patala, Tq. Bhadravati,
District Chandrapur.
11. Tahsildar, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
12. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani,
District Yavatmal.
13. Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur. .... RESPONDENTS.
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:04:20 :::
wp3029.14
3
Shri P.D. Meghe Advocate for the Petitioners.
Shri M.D. Zoting Advocate for Respondent no. 1 to 10.
Shri Amit Balpande, AGP, for Respondents 11, 12 & 13.
.....
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 05.04.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents 1
to 10 made a request for adjournment. The request, however,
cannot be considered as the matter is quite old and the dispute
between the parties has been pending since the year 1991. The
request is, therefore, rejected and matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
by consent of parties.
3. The only point that has been canvassed on behalf of
the petitioners is that in exercise of revisional powers, the learned
Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, at the most, could
have remanded the matter back to the Sub Divisional Officer for
decision of the appeal in accordance with law and could not have
wp3029.14
straightway allowed the revision application, the effect of which
was quashing and setting aside of the order passed by the
Tahsildar on 18.1.1991, whereby he allowed the application of the
petitioners filed under Section 43 (14-A) of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
4. The learned Sub Divisional Officer had dismissed the
appeal filed by the respondents on 05.8.1996 only on the ground
that the counsel for the respondents was not present. The appeal
had not been decided on merits. Therefore, if the learned Member
of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had to allow the revision
application, the order allowing it could not have gone beyond
remanding of the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer for a fresh
decision of the appeal in accordance with law. The learned
Member in stead of doing that, allowed the entire revision. Such
an order in exercise of revisional powers cannot be passed and,
therefore, it needs interference.
5. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed.
Impunged order dated 28.10.2013 is partly quashed only to the
extent it allows the entire revision application and now it is
directed that the matter be remanded to Sub Divisional Officer
wp3029.14
Wani, for decision of tenancy appeal afresh in accordance with
law. Parties to appear before the Sub Divisional Officer, Wani, on
25.4.2016 at 11 a.m. Tenancy Appeal be disposed of within
three months from the date of appearance of the parties.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No cost.
ig JUDGE
/TA/
