Smt. Pramila Bhanudas Lonkar And ... vs The Additional Commissioner, ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 3546 Bom

                                                                                                                                           wp2332-15




                                                                                                                                          
                                                                                 1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, 




                                                                                                      
                                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                                                WRIT PETITION No.2332 OF 2015




                                                                                                     
    1.         Smt.  Pramila Bhanudas Lonkar,
               age about 60 years, Occu. Household,

    2.         Bhanudas Jaikrishna Lonkar,
               aged about 66 years, Occu. Business, 




                                                                               
               Both residents of Sarafa Line, 
               Anjangaon Surji, Dist. Amravati.   ig                                                                ...            Petitioners.

                                                 ..versus..  
                                                
    1.         The Additional Commissioner,
               Amravati Division, Amravati.
    2.         The Additional Collector,
               Amravati. 
    3.         The Sub Divisional Officer,
        

               Daryuapur, District Amravati. 
    4.         Tahsildar, Anjangaon Ssurji,
     



               District Amravati. 
    5.         Shri Baburao Annaji Sabale,
               Aged about adult, r/o Dahigaon
               Recha, Taluka Anjangaon Surji, 





               District Amravati.               ....                                                                  ...      Respondents.
    .......................................................................................................................................................

Mrs. R.D. Raskar, advocate for petitioners.

Mr. S.B. Ahirkar, Additional Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4. Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Sr. Counsel a/w P.S. Patil, advocate for respondent no.5. .......................................................................................................................................................

                                                            CORAM                  :  A.S. CHANDURKAR, 
                                                                                                             J.
                                                            DATED                  :  01 st  
                                                                                               JULY,  2016.

    ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

.....2/-

wp2332-15

2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed

by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati, dated

17.1.2015 thereby allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent no.

5 and restoring the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 4.2.2008.

3. The dispute between the parties relates to the mutation entry

for the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. The petitioners herein claimed to be the

owners of fields Gat No. 115 and 116 of village Dahegaon Khurd. According

to the petitioners, an application dated 27.9.2006 was moved by them before

the Tahsildar for mutating their names. The respondent no.5 moved his

application on 16.7.2007 seeking entry of his name in the revenue record.

The matter was considered by the Tahsildar by clubbing both the

proceedings. The Tahsildar came to the conclusion that as per the report of

the Talathi dated 11.9.2006, the name of respondent no. 5 was required to

be entered in the revenue record. In the appeal filed by the petitioners, the

Sub-Divisional Officer found that besides the report dated 11.9.2006, there

was another report dated 9.9.2006 which was not considered by the

Tahsildar. He, therefore, remanded the proceedings for fresh consideration.

This order of remand was maintained by the Additional Collector, Amravati

Division, Amravati. The Additional Commissioner, held on the basis of a

communication by the Talathi that there was no report issued on 9.9.2006.

.....3/-

wp2332-15

He further observed that there was a spot inspection on 29.8.2009. On the

basis of report dated 11.9.2006, the revision petition filed by the respondent

no. 5 was allowed and the order of remand was set aside. Being aggrieved,

the said order is challenged in the present writ petition.

3. Mrs. Raskar, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector were justified in

remanding the proceedings on the ground that there were two reports of the

Talathi dated 9.9.2006 and 11.9.2006. She submitted that the observations

made by the Sub Divisional Officer that a detailed inquiry was necessary

coupled with examination of the Talathi were valid reasons for the order of

remand. She submitted that the Additional Commissioner, however, without

any legal basis interfered with the order of the Additional Collector and set

aside the same. She submitted that the Additional Commissioner for the first

time referred to the spot inspection conducted on 29.8.2009 and held in

favour of the respondent no. 5. It was further submitted that reference to the

civil suit was also not relevant as the suit filed by the respondent no. 5 had

been dismissed. She, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the

Additional Collector deserves to be restored.

4. Shri Kaptan, the learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 5

along with Shri P.S. Patil, learned counsel submitted that there was only one

.....4/-

wp2332-15

report dated 11.9.2006 on record. He submitted that pursuant to the

communication dated 17.11.2006 issued by the Naib Tahsildar, the Talathi

had submitted his reply that no report was prepared on 9.9.2006. It was

submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 5 that though the civil suit was

dismissed by the trial court, the Appellate Court had passed an order of

status quo which is continuing till date. The learned Senior Counsel therefore

submitted that in the light of the letter issued by the Talathi, there is no

purpose of remanding the proceedings as there was only one report on

record.

6. Shri S.B. Ahirkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader

appears for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

7. The Tahsildar while deciding both the applications in question

had referred to the report of the Talathi dated 11.9.2006 and on that basis

held in favour of the respondent no.5. It was further observed that the other

report dated 9.9.2006 was not brought before him in the said proceedings.

The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Collector proceeded on the

basis that there was report dated 9.9.2006 on record. However, the

Additional Commissioner took into consideration the communication dated

15.11.2006 issued by the Talathi that there was no such report dated

9.9.2006. Thus, the only report on record is dated 11.9.2006 which stood in

.....5/-

wp2332-15

favour of the respondent no.5. The reason that the Sub-Divisional Officer

and the Additional Collector found it necessary to remand the proceedings

was the stand that two reports were on record. Once this position was

made clear by the statement of the Talathi himself dated 15.11.2006, no

purpose would have been served by remanding the proceedings. Even if the

spot inspection dated 29.8.2009 is excluded from consideration, the

subsequent report dated 11.9.2006 stands in favour of the respondent no.5.

8. In this factual background, I do not find that the Additional

Commissioner committed any error in allowing the revision petition filed by

respondent no.5. The reference made to the order of status quo while

allowing the revision petition is also not a factor which has much bearing

inasmuch as the order of status quo is dated 21.4.2011 while the dispute

pertains to the mutation entry in the year 2006-07 and 2007-08. Hence, this

aspect also not relevant while assailing the impugned order.

In view of aforesaid, I am not inclined to entertain the writ

petition. The same is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE Hirekhan

...../-