Bombay High Court
Smt. Ajahar Sultana W/O Abdul Rauf vs Shri. Bapurao S/O Mahadeo ... on 20 July, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
911-J-6751-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.6751 OF 2015
Ajahar Sultana w/o Abdul Rauf,
aged about 52 years, Occ. Agriculture,
resident of Lendi Talao, Bangali Panja,
Lal Darwaja Road, Lohapul, Nagpur. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. Bapurao s/o Mahadeo Rohankar
aged about 53 years, Occ. Service.
2. Anant s/o Mahadeo Rohankar
aged about 53 years, Occ. Service.
Both these respondents are residents of
Post Wadhona, Tahsil Arvi,
Dist. Wardha - 442207.
3. Sub-Divisional Officer, Katol,
Tahsil Katol, Dist. Nagpur,
having office at Katol. ... Respondents
Shri P. A. Abhyankar, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri S. M. Nafde, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri A. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.3.
CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : July 20, 2016
Oral Judgment :
Rule heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 06/08/2015 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer in revenue proceedings whereby despite
911-J-6751-15 2/5
directing the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to approach the civil Court to have
their rights adjudicated, the interim order granted earlier in said proceedings
has been directed to operate till orders are passed by the civil Court.
2. The name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records on
28/01/1995 on the basis of a sale-deed being executed in her favour. The
respondent Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by said mutation entry filed an
appeal on 30/08/2014 challenging the same. Alongwith the appeal an
application for staying the order of mutation was also moved. On
02/09/2014, the respondent No.3 passed an ad-interim order directing the
parties to maintain status-quo. After the petitioner filed her written
statement, the Sub-Divisional Officer found that there was a dispute with
regard to title of the property and its adjudication was beyond the
jurisdiction of the revenue Authorities. The appeal was partly allowed and
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 were directed to have their rights adjudicated in
the civil Court. The ad-interim order which was granted on 02/09/2014
was confirmed with a further direction that it would operate till orders are
passed by the civil Court.
3. Shri P. A. Abhyankar, the learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer having found that he had no
jurisdiction to entertain the dispute of title was not justified in continuing the
911-J-6751-15 3/5
interim order till any further orders were passed by the civil Court. He
submitted that when the said order was passed, even the civil suit had not
been filed. He referred to the provisions of Section 256 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1956 (for short, the Code) and contended that these
powers could be exercised only during pendency of appellate proceedings
and not beyond said period. The appeal having been finally decided there
was no occasion to direct continuation of the interim order for an indefinite
period.
Shri S. M. Nafde, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1
and 2 and Shri A. Kadukar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent No.3 supported the impugned order. It was submitted that the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 had been directed to have their rights adjudicated in
the civil Court. No prejudice was caused to either of the parties as the name
of the petitioner continued in the revenue record. Moreover, the civil suit
had been filed subsequently on 11/09/2015. It was therefore submitted that
there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
4. Having heard the respective counsel and having perused the
documents on record I find that the Sub-Divisional Officer was not justified
in directing continuation of the ad-interim order of status quo while directing
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to approach the civil Court. Once it was found
that there was a dispute of title between the parties and the same was
911-J-6751-15 4/5
required to be adjudicated before the civil Court, there was no occasion
whatsoever to continue the interim order passed earlier. Under provisions of
Section 256(2) of the said Code, the order passed by the subordinate
Authorities could be stayed only during pendency of the appellate
proceedings. The appeal having been not entertained on the ground that the
issue of title was beyond jurisdiction of the revenue Authorities, the order of
status quo did not deserve to the continued. Moreover, the respondent Nos.1
and 2 had not filed any civil suit when the said order was passed.
The submission that the impugned orders did not cause any
prejudice to the petitioner and hence it could be permitted to operate cannot
be accepted especially when the appeal itself was not entertained on account
of a dispute of title.
5. In view of aforesaid the order dated 06/08/2015 to the extent it
directs the parties to maintain status-quo in terms of the ad-interim order
dated 02/09/2014 is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Asmita
911-J-6751-15 5/5
-: C E R T I F I C A T E :-
" I certify that this Judgment/order uploaded is a true and
correct copy of the original signed Judgment/order."
Uploaded by :
Asmita A. Bhandakkar
Personal Assistant
Uploaded on :
26/07/2016
