Bombay High Court
Malini Prabhakar Dhume And ... vs Dinkar Sambshiv Dodake And 3 ... on 6 April, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
wp5510.14++.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5510 OF 2014
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5466 OF 2014
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5523 OF 2014
W. P. No.5510/2014 :
1. Malini Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 75 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
2. Manoj Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 41 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
Both r/o Manorama Apartment,
Waman Niwas, Waman Ghat Road,
r/o Post/Taluka Wani,
District Yeotmal. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Kisan Ganu Mandavkar
aged 56 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist,
r/o at Patharpur, Post Kayar,
Tq. Wani, Distt. Yeotmal.
2. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Commissioner Office Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani
r/o P. & Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal.
4. Tahsildar/President,
Agricultural Land Tribunal, Wani,
Distt. Yeotmal. :: RESPONDENTS
W. P. No.5466/2014 :
1. Malini Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 75 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:12:50 :::
wp5510.14++.odt 2/5
2. Manoj Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 41 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
Both r/o Manorama Apartment,
Waman Niwas, Waman Ghat Road,
r/o Post/Taluka Wani,
District Yeotmal. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Dinkar Sambshiv Dodake
aged 63 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist,
r/o at Patharpur, Post Kayar,
Tq. Wani, Distt. Yeotmal.
2. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Commissioner Office Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani
r/o P. & Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal.
4. Tahsildar/President,
Agricultural Land Tribunal, Wani,
Distt. Yeotmal. :: RESPONDENTS
W. P. No.5523/2014 :
1. Malini Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 75 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
2. Manoj Prabhakar Dhume
aged about 41 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist.
Both r/o Manorama Apartment,
Waman Niwas, Waman Ghat Road,
r/o Post/Taluka Wani,
District Yeotmal. :: PETITIONERS
.. Versus
..
1. Gajanan s/o Gosai Kale
aged 66 yrs., Occp. Agriculturist,
2. Smt. Bayabai wd/o Gosai Kale
::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 21:12:50 :::
wp5510.14++.odt 3/5
aged major, Occp. Agriculturist,
Both r/o at Patharpur, Post Kayar,
Tq. Wani, Distt. Yeotmal.
3. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Commissioner Office Building,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. Sub Divisional Officer, Wani
r/o P. & Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Tahsildar/President,
Agricultural Land Tribunal, Wani,
::
Distt. Yeotmal. RESPONDENTS
...................................................................................................................................
Shri S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A. S. Fale, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Ms T. H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for respondents-State.
...................................................................................................................................
CORAM : S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED : 6th APRIL, 2016.
O R A L J U D G M E N T
O R A L J U D G M E N T
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent.
3. The petitioners have three main grievances. According to
them, opportunity to lead evidence was not granted, that the whole
proceedings filed under Section 48 of the Bombay Tenancy &
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the said
Act) have been conducted by not following the provisions of Sections
101 and 102 of the said Act and that Section 5(3) of the Mamlatdar
Courts Act was applicable, as held in the case of Panpoi Dharmal
wp5510.14++.odt 4/5
Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant s/o Maroti Dhakulkar & others -
1989 Mh.L.J.-710, prescribing limitation period of six months from
the date on which execution accrued.
4. On perusal of the record of the Mamlatdar's Court, (which
is returned) particularly the order sheet thereof, I find substance in the
argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the
parties were never intimated anything about fixing of the case for
recording of evidence and the result was that the petitioners, in this
case, could not lead any evidence.
5. Learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 as well as
respondent No.1 submitted that whatever is mentioned in the order
sheet is a matter of record and may be considered appropriately.
6. I have already found that it is not reflected anywhere in the
order sheet that the matter was kept for recording of evidence at any
point of time. Therefore, appropriate opportunity to defend
themselves was denied to the petitioners. The impugned order also
does not show that the provisions of Sections 101 and 102 of the said
Act are properly followed in as much as the issue of bar of limitation
also appears to have not been considered by the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar.
7. For the reasons stated above, I find that this is a fit case for
interfering with the impugned order and directing reconsideration of
the whole issue according to law.
wp5510.14++.odt 5/5
I. The petitions are allowed.
II. Impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
III. The proceedings are remanded back to the Court of
Mamlatdar for deciding the applications filed under Section
48 of the said Act afresh, in accordance with law.
IV. Both the parties shall be given opportunity of hearing, in
accordance with law.
V. If the parties desire to lead evidence, same shall be granted.
However, parties must cooperate with the learned Tahsildar
in concluding the proceedings at the earliest.
VI. All contentions are kept open and may be considered
appropriately and in accordance with law by the learned
Tahsildar.
VII. Parties to appear before the learned Tahsildar on
03/5/2016 at 11.00 a.m.
VIII. The proceedings shall be disposed of within six months from
the date of appearance of the parties.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wwl
