Jayshri D/O. Narendra Dhote And ... vs Arun S/O. Dadaji Thakre And Others
2016 Latest Caselaw 2640 Bom

    15-WP-4613-15                                                                          1/6


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                   
                              NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                              WRIT PETITION NO.4613 OF 2015




                                                           
    1.  Jayshri d/o Narendra Dhote
         Aged about 59 years, 




                                                          
         Occupation Household, 

    2.  Shrikant s/o Narendra Dhote
         Aged about 49 years, 




                                              
         Occupation Agriculturist, 
         Both above 1) and 2) r/o Kutki, 
         Tah. Hinganghat, Dist. Wardha.  
                                      ig                      ... Petitioners 

    -vs- 
                                    
    1.  Arun s/o Dadaji Thakre
         Aged major, Occ. Not known, 
         r/o Chinchala, Tah. Deoli, 
         Dist. Wardha 
              


    2.  Member (Administrative)
           



         Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur 

    3.  The Sub Divisional Officer
         Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat, 





         Dist. Wardha.                                        ... Respondents 


    Shri J. T. Gilda, Advocate for petitioners. 
    Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for respondent No.1. 





    Ms T. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 


                                                  CORAM  : A.S.CHANDURKAR, J. 

DATE : JUNE 08, 2016 Oral Judgment :

Heard. The challenge in the writ petition is to the order dated

13/01/2015 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,

15-WP-4613-15 2/6

Nagpur thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner and

confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hinganghat dated

25/02/2014.

2. The present proceedings arise under the provisions of the

Maharashtra Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short,

the said Act). One Panjabrao Dhote was the owner of various agricultural

lands. He was married with one Indirabai. Said Panjabrao expired on

10/02/1944. One Narendra, the father of the petitioners was the adopted

son of Panjabrao. In proceedings initiated in 1973-74, said Narendra had

filed return under Section 12 of the said Act. Land to the extent of 186.75

acres was declared as surplus by order dated 16/06/1986. One Nalinibai

claiming to be the second wife of Panjabrao filed an objection on

14/06/1991 in the aforesaid proceedings on the ground that her name was

not mentioned in the return filed by Narendra. The Sub-Divisional Officer by

order dated 24/06/1991 rejected the objection as being barred by limitation.

The appeal filed by Nalinibai was also dismissed. Said Nalinibai filed Writ

Petition No.3021 of 1991 challenging aforesaid orders. By judgment dated

01/09/2004 this Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the

proceedings for being decided afresh on merits. After remand, the Sub-

Divisional Officer held that said Nalinibai was entitled to raise objections in

terms of her application dated 14/06/1991. He therefore directed a fresh

15-WP-4613-15 3/6

enquiry in the matter. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before

the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By the impugned order said appeal has

been dismissed.

3. Shri J. T. Gilda, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that both the Authorities were not justified in permitting the respondent No.1

to raise an objection in the aforesaid proceedings. It was submitted that the

objections as raised were after almost forty five years after the death of said

Panjabrao. The claim as made by Nalinibai of being the second wife of

Panjabrao was without any factual or legal basis. The explanation sought to

be furnished that there were certain differences between said Nalinibai and

Narendra due to which she was residing separately could not have been

accepted. The Will on the basis of which the entitlement was being claimed

by respondent No.1 was shrouded with suspicious circumstances and the

same therefore could not have been considered. Reliance was placed on the

decision in Guro vs. Atma Singh and ors. (1992) 2 Supreme Court Cases

507. It was then submitted that one of the daughters of Narendra namely

Nandini had not been joined as a party in the proceedings and therefore the

same were not tenable. It was therefore submitted that both the Authorities

without considering these relevant aspects which went to the root of the

matter have passed the impugned orders and the same were liable to be set

aside.

15-WP-4613-15 4/6

4. Shri R. D. Bhuibhar, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1

supported the impugned orders. According to him this Court had remanded

the proceedings for being decided on merits and hence the objection on the

point of delay was not liable to be taken into consideration. He submitted

that the respondent No.1 had filed about eighteen documents to indicate his

legal right to raise objection to the ceiling proceedings. These documents

included certified copy of the Will executed by Nalinibai as well as the Voter's

Card to indicate the fact that said Nalinibai was the wife of Panjabrao. It was

then submitted that the objection that the daughter Nandini had not been

impleaded was being raised merely with a view to prolong the proceedings.

Such objection was not raised when the petitioners were impleaded as legal

heirs of Narendra in Writ Petition No.3021 of 1991. It was therefore

submitted that considering the findings recorded by both the Authorities

which were based on documents on record, there was no reason to interfere

in writ jurisdiction.

Ms T. Khan, the learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared

for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the documents placed on record.

By order dated 01/09/2004 passed in Writ Petition No.3021 of

1991 this Court had quashed the earlier orders passed by the Authorities

15-WP-4613-15 5/6

below and had directed a fresh adjudication on merits of the application

moved by respondent No.1. In the said application dated 14/06/1991 it was

stated that said Nalinibai was the second wife of Panjabrao and as the

relations between the parties were strained, her name had not been shown as

one of the legal heirs of said Panjabrao. In support of aforesaid application,

about eighteeen documents which included copy of the Will dated

23/12/1992, voters' list, ration card and other revenue documents were

placed on record. It is to be noted that the present proceedings arises in the

matter of declaration of surplus land. The respondent No.1 and Nalinibai

were claiming entitlement to raise objection on the basis that said Nalinibai

was the wife of Panjabrao. The Authorities have noted that the Will dated

23/12/1992 executed in favour of respondent No.1 had not been challenged

by the petitioners. On that basis and on the basis of other documents that

were placed on record, it was found that the respondent No.1 and Nalinibai

could be permitted to raise objection in the ceiling proceedings. These

aspects were also considered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and it

was found by the Tribunal that the claim as made could not be treated to be

frivolous so as to be ignored. The objection that the name of one of the

daughters of Narendra was not included in the return was also taken into

consideration and it was found that the same could not be a reason to refuse

permission to the respondent No.1 to raise the objection.

The submission that the Will executed in favour of the

15-WP-4613-15 6/6

respondent No.1 could not have been relied upon cannot be accepted. It is

for the petitioners to challenge the aforesaid Will in case they feel that the

respondent No.1 was not entitled to claim any legal right on the basis of said

Will. The observations made in the impugned order regarding validity of

said Will have to be construed as enabling the respondent No.1 to rely upon

the same for raising objection in the ceiling proceedings. In case the validity

of said Will is challenged by the petitioners, the outcome of such

proceedings, if initiated, would naturally bind the parties. However, at this

stage said Will cannot be brushed aside by considering it as an invalid

document. Hence, the decision in Guro (supra) does not further the case of

the petitioners in these circumstances.

6. Thus it can be seen that both the Authorities have considered the

relevant material on record and have permitted the respondent No.1 to raise

objection in the ceiling proceedings. A fresh adjudication has been directed.

It is always open for the petitioners to contest the proceedings on merits by

raising all such grounds as are permissible in law. In that view of the

matter, I do not find that it is fit case to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The

writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

Asmita