Bombay High Court
Anandrao S/O Paika Chikram vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., And 3 ... on 22 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp3094.10
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3094/2010
Anandrao S/o Paika Chikram,
aged about 64 Yrs., Occu. Cultivation,
R/o Asan (B.K.), Tah. Korpana,
Distt. Chandrapur. ..Petitioner.
..VS..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur.
3. The Tahsildar, Rajura.
4. Ashok S/o Shivram Deshpande,
aged about 54 Yrs., Occu. Business,
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Ward No.8, Rajura,
Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri S.A. Deo, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for respondent No.4.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 22.6.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri S.A. Deo, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri A.D. Sonak, A.G.P. for
the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Abhay Sambre, Advocate for the respondent No.4.
2. The petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No.46/2005 praying for decree for
permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.4 from interfering with the
2 wp3094.10
alleged possession of petitioner over 9 acres 14 gunthas out of Survey No.46 (earlier
Survey No.33). According to the petitioner, Paika - father of petitioner was protected
tenant in respect of 20 acres 16 gunthas of the field and a certificate to that effect was
issued by the competent Authority in 1957. According to the petitioner, a certificate
dated 21st December, 1962 was issued by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under the
Rule 23(4) of the Rules conferring statutory ownership on Paika in respect of 11 acres
2 gunthas out of Survey No.33 (now Survey No.46). According to the petitioner,
Paika had filed an application before the Tahsildar on 5 th December, 1970 praying
that the statutory ownership in respect of 9 acres 14 gunthas out of Survey No.46 be
conferred on him, which was rejected.
According to the petitioner, Paika died on 15th January, 1989. The petitioner
filed an application before the Tahsildar on 23rd March, 1990 again praying for
conferral of statutory ownership in respect of 9 acres 14 gunthas out of Survey No.46.
This application was rejected by the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer
maintained the order passed by the Tahsildar.
After culmination of this proceeding, the petitioner filed regular civil suit to
protect his alleged possession over 9 acres 14 gunthas of Survey No.46. In this civil
suit, petitioner filed an application praying for temporary injunction which is granted
and the respondent No.4 is restrained from interfering with the possession of
petitioner over 9 acres 14 gunthas of Survey No.46. The miscellaneous civil appeal
filed by the respondent No.4 is dismissed.
In this civil suit, issue as to whether the petitioner is protected tenant is framed
and it came to be referred to the Tahsildar for adjudication. The Tahsildar has
recorded the finding against the petitioner. The challenge to the order passed by the
3 wp3094.10
Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer failed. The petitioner approached
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision which is also dismissed. The petitioner
being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this petition.
3. Shri S.A. Deo, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the
findings recorded by the subordinate Authorities and the Tribunal that the tenancy of
petitioner is terminated in 1994 and, therefore, he cannot claim to be protected
tenant, are erroneous. In my view, the legality of the above finding is required to be
decided in view of the admitted fact that the claim for conferral of statutory
ownership in respect of 9 acres 14 gunthas of Survey No.46 is rejected earlier and the
application filed by Paika (father of petitioner) was dismissed on 5th December, 1970.
The application filed by the petitioner on 23rd March, 1990 came to be dismissed and
the appeal filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer is also dismissed. The petitioner
has not placed on the record the copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 5 th
December, 1970 rejecting the application filed by Paika. The petitioner has not
placed on the record the copy of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 23rd March,
1990 and the copy of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing the
appeal filed by the petitioner against the above order.
The copies of relevant orders are not produced on the record and, therefore,
adverse inference has to be drawn against the petitioner that in the earlier
proceedings Paika (father of petitioner) and then petitioner have suffered adverse
findings which have attained finality.
For the above reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned orders.
The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand
4 wp3094.10
Only) to be paid by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 within one month.
If the amount of costs is not paid within one month, the trial Court shall take
note of it and consider it to be non-compliance of the order passed by this Court.
As the civil suit is of 2005, the trial Court shall dispose the civil suit till 6th
January, 2017.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
