Bombay High Court
Birbalnath Maharaj Sansthan ... vs Maha. Revenue Tribunal By ... on 5 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp2439.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.2439/2016
Birbalnath Maharaj Sansthan,
a registered Public Trust by President
Trusts Smt. Pushpa W/o Ramkumar
Raghuwanshi, Aged about 55 Yrs.,
R/o Mangrulpir, Post. & Tah.
Mangrulpir, Distt. Washim. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
by Registrar, Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Smt. Laxmibai Wd/o Miraji Hisekar,
(died on 4.11.2004)
Respondent Nos.3 to 5 only heirs
are already on record)
3. Bhaurao S/o Miraji Hisekar,
aged about 70 Yrs., Agriculturist.
4. Kisan S/o Miraji Hisekar,
aged about 65 Yrs., Agriculturist.
5. Mahadeo S/o Miraji Hisekar,
aged about 63 Yrs., Agriculturist,
Nos.2 to 5 R/o Swasin, Post
Mangrulpir, Tah. Mangrulpir,
Distt. Washim. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 5.7.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.P. Tathod, Advocate
2 wp2439.16
for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and Ms. H.N. Prabhu, A.G.P. for the respondent
No.1.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioner - Trust filed proceedings under Section 120(c) of the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short
"Act of 1958") contending that Miraji Maroti Hisekar (predecessor of the respondent
Nos.3, 4 and 5) was the tenant of agricultural land owned by the petitioner - Trust,
that the petitioner - Trust is granted exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of
the Act of 1958, that Miraji died in 1984 and after his death the respondent Nos.3, 4
and 5 had no right to continue with possession of the agricultural land and as their
possession was unauthorized they were liable to be evicted summarily under Section
120 of the Act of 1958. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed an order on 23 rd February,
1987 accepting the claim of the petitioner - Trust and directed the eviction of
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and their mother Laxmibai from the suit land. The
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and their mother Laxmibai challenged the order passed by
the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision. The
revision application was allowed by the Tribunal by the order dated 14 th August,
1990. Relying on the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakf), Balapur V/s. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji reported
in 1989 Mh.L.J. 891, the Tribunal recorded that even though the petitioner - Trust
was granted exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958, the
tenancy rights in respect of the suit land were heritable and the possession of the
3 wp2439.16
respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 and their mother over the suit field as legal heirs of Miraji
was not unauthorized. The Tribunal set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner - Trust under Section
120(c) of the Act of 1958.
4. The petitioner - Trust has filed this petition on 29 th February, 2016 challenging
the order passed by the Tribunal on 14 th August, 1990. The submission on behalf of
the petitioner is that the tenancy rights in respect of agricultural land belonging to a
Public Trust which is granted exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of
1958 are not heritable as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment given in
the case of Shriram Mandir Sansthan @ Shri Ram Sansthan Pusda V/s. Vatsalabai and
others reported in 1999(1) Mh.L.J.321.
5. The learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 has opposed the
petition on the ground that the petition is filed after more than 25 years of the
passing of the order by the Tribunal and inordinate delay and latches are not
explained. The other objection is that the order passed by the Tribunal on 14 th
August, 1990 was in consonance with the legal position as it existed at that time and
only because the judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
Khanqah-Kadria Trust (Wakf), Balapur V/s. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji (cited
supra) is overruled after about 10 years, the petitioner - Trust cannot be permitted to
raise the challenge relying on the subsequent judgment as the facts on the record
show that the petitioner - Trust had accepted the order passed by the Tribunal.
4 wp2439.16
6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner - Trust has submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held in the judgment given in the case of Shriram Mandir
Sansthan @ Shri Ram Sansthan Pusda V/s. Vatsalabai and others (cited supra) that the
tenancy rights in respect of agricultural land belonging to the Public Trust which is
granted exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958 are not
heritable and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be maintained and
has to be set aside. Relying on the proposition laid down in paragraph Nos.63 and
64 of the judgment given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narmada
Bachao Andolan V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. reported in AIR 2011 SC 1989,
it is submitted that this Court cannot permit an error to be perpetuated and the legal
system acknowledges the fallibility of the Courts and provides for internal and
external checks to correct the errors and in consonance with the above principle this
Court should exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction to set right the illegality committed
by the Tribunal. It is prayed that the order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and
the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer be restored.
7. Though the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner - Trust appear to be
appealing, the principle which enunciates from the judgment given in the case of
Narmada Bachao Andolan V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. (cited supra) cannot be
applied in the present case. It cannot be said that the Tribunal committed any
illegality when it passed the order on 14 th August, 1990. The Tribunal followed the
law laid down by this Court in the judgment given in the case of Khanqah-Kadria
Trust (Wakf), Balapur V/s. Shevantabai wd/o Raoji Shivaji (cited supra). It is well
settled that change in law cannot be a ground to raise the challenge after a long
5 wp2439.16
period, in the present case it being 25 years. Further, I find from the record that the
petitioner - Trust accepted the order passed by the Tribunal and no steps were taken
by it to challenge the order. The petitioner - Trust has not been able to give
sufficient reasons for not challenging the order passed by Tribunal for 25 years.
8. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by
the Tribunal. The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear
their own costs.
At this stage, Shri B.N. Mohta, Advocate for the petitioner - Trust seeks liberty
to initiate fresh proceedings against the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5.
Needless to say that the petitioner - Trust can initiate proceedings if
permissible in law.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
