Bombay High Court
Shewantabai Ishwar Sarkate vs Ajabrao Motiram Thakre on 12 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3390.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.3390 OF 2014
Shewantabai Ishwar Sarkate,
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Lohari, Tq. Akot, District Akola. .... PETITIONER
VERSUS
Ajabrao Motiram Thakre,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation - Agriculture,
R/o Lohari, Tq. Akot, District Akola. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner,
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 12
APRIL, 2016
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The writ petition was heard on 03-02-2016 and after
hearing the learned Advocates for the petitioner and respondent, the
judgment was dictated in open Court. On the same day at 1.30 p.m.,
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the respondent mentioned the
2 wp3390.14
matter and submitted that specific ground was raised before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the petitioner was in Government
service and therefore was not entitled for permission to purchase
agricultural land, however, it is not considered by the Tribunal. As
Shri S.C. Mahadia, Advocate appearing for the petitioner was not
present when the matter was mentioned, an order recording these
facts was passed on 03-02-2016 and it was directed that the draft
judgment be kept in sealed envelope and that the matter be listed for
further consideration on 05-02-2016. Before the matter could be
further taken up for hearing, the assignment changed. The matter was
listed before Shri R.K. Deshpande, J. on 10-02-2016 and he directed
that the matter be placed before the same Judge. In this background,
the matter is listed before me.
2. Heard Shri S.C. Mehadia, Advocate for the petitioner and
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the respondent.
3. The writ petition is taken up for hearing with the consent
of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3 wp3390.14
4. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by which the order passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer is set aside on the ground that the respondent was
not heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer before passing the order. Shri
S.C. Mehadia, learned Advocate for the petitioner, relying on the
judgment given by this Court in the case of M/s. Jai Vijay Enterprises,
Amravati vs. M/s. Ashish Enterprises, Amravati and another
reported in 1988 Mah.L.R. 394, has submitted that the proceedings
under Section 89 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
(Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of
1958") are of administrative nature and are not judicial or quasi-
judicial proceedings and therefore, it was not necessary for the
petitioner to implead the respondent as party to the proceedings and
consequently it was not necessary for the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear
the respondent before considering the application filed by the
petitioner under Section 89 of the Act of 1958.
5. Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the respondent has
submitted that the respondent is the earlier owner of the agricultural
land in respect of which permission for purchasing is sought by the
petitioner and therefore, he has the right to participate in the
4 wp3390.14
proceedings and oppose the claim of the petitioner. In support of the
submission, the learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given by
this Court in the case of Shankar s/o Namdeo Kharat vs. Namdeo
s/o Ashru Kharat (Mali) another reported in 1996(2) Bom.C.R. 473.
Shri R.G. Kavimandan, Advocate for the respondent has
submitted that the petitioner was in Government Service at the time of
execution of sale-deed on 20-06-1980 and this was a disqualification
for seeking permission to purchase agricultural land and it was
incumbent on the petitioner to disclose all these facts before seeking
permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 89 of the Act
of 1958 but she had not disclosed this fact. It is submitted that this
point was raised before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, it
is not considered.
6. The point raised by the respondent about the ineligibility
of the petitioner to purchase the land is not considered by the
Tribunal. The failure to advert to the relevant issue raised by the
respondent about ineligibility of the petitioner to purchase the
agricultural land, vitiates the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
5 wp3390.14
7. Hence, the following order :
i) The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in
Appeal No.65/TEN-59/89/Chinchkhed(Bk.)/2006 on
07-01-2014 is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Nagpur for deciding the appeal filed by the
respondent, afresh, according to law.
iii) The petitioner and the respondent undertake to appear
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 13-06-2016
at 11-00 a.m. and abide by the further orders in the
matter.
iv) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
v) The draft judgment dictated on 03-02-2016 alongwith
signatures of the Personal Assistant and Court Sheristedar
of the Court is kept on the record, however as it was not
signed by me, it is ineffective.
JUDGE
pma
