Bombay High Court
The Zilla Parishad, Amravati ... vs Smt. Venubai Wd/O Pandurang Hood ... on 30 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp1547.15.odt 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1547 OF 2015
PETITIONERS: 1. The Zilla Parishad, Amravati through
its Chief Executive Officer,
2. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samiti, Achalpur, District-
Amravati.
ig -VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Venubai wd/o Pandurang Hood,
Aged about 65 years,
2. Mohan S/o Pandurang Hood, Aged
about 40 years,
3. Sanjay S/o Pandurang Hood, Aged
about 38 years,
1 to 3 R/o Village-Bhugaon, Tahsil-
Achalpur, District-Amravati.
Shri Rohit Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri G. M. Kubade, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 30
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned Counsel
for the parties have been heard at length.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by
wp1547.15.odt 2/5
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in the revision
application preferred by the petitioners thereby setting aside the
orders passed by the Tenancy Tahasildar as well as the Sub
Divisional Officer and remanding the proceedings for fresh
adjudication.
3. According to the petitioners, one Pandurang Hood was
in cultivating possession of the land that was owned by the Zilla
Parishad. The petitioners filed a suit for possession against said
Pandurang. In the written statement a plea was raised that
Pandurang was a tenant since 1965. The issue of tenancy was
referred to the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar by order dated
4-5-2011 declared Pandurang to be a tenant. This order was
maintained by the Sub Divisional Officer. In the revision
application, it was urged on behalf of the petitioners that as said
Pandurang had not exercised the right of purchasing the land in
question, the tenancy was deemed to have been surrendered.
Considering the said submission, the proceedings came to be
remanded for fresh adjudication.
4. Shri Rohit Joshi, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that there was no reason whatsoever to
remand the proceedings to the Tahasidlar for fresh adjudication.
According to him as it was observed by the Maharashtra Revenue
wp1547.15.odt 3/5
Tribunal that the right of purchase was not exercised by
Pandurang and there was deemed surrender of the tenancy, the
revision application ought to have been allowed by answering the
reference in the negative. He submitted that there was nothing on
record to hold that such right of purchase was exercised by
Pandurang. He placed reliance on the decision of learned Single
judge in Shantabai vs. Santosh 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 868 in support of
his submissions.
ig Shri G. M. Kubade, the learned Counsel for the
respondents supported the impugned order. According to him, the
Tribunal was justified in remanding the proceeding as the aspect
of deemed surrender went to the root of the matte. He submitted
that in the absence of any pleadings in that regard, there was no
occasion for the respondents to meet aforesaid contention. He,
therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the
impugned order.
6. Having heard the respective Counsel for the parties
and having perused the documents on record, I find that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in remanding the
proceedings for deciding the same afresh after considering the
relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1958. The aspect as to whether there was deemed
wp1547.15.odt 4/5
surrender of the tenancy required factual adjudication. The plea
that the erstwhile tenant had not exercised right of purchase was
not specifically pleaded by the petitioners. Hence there was no
occasion for the respondents to counter this plea. This point was
raised for the first time before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
In that background, the Revenue Tribunal rightly observed that the
aspect of deemed surrender went to the root of the matter and
therefore, it was necessary for the Tahasildar to decide the
proceedings. The legal position with regard to absence of right
being exercised within a period of one year from the
commencement of tenancy is not in dispute. The reliance placed
on the decision in Shantabai Eknath Jadhav (supra) reiterates said
position. However, in the absence of such plea being raised either
before the Tahasildar or the Sub Divisional Officer and the same
being raised for the first time before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, I do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in
remanding the proceedings for deciding the same in accordance
with law.
7. In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal remanding the proceedings is
maintained. However, as the suit pertains to the year 2002, the
proceedings before the Tahasildar are expedited. After remand,
wp1547.15.odt 5/5
the said proceedings should be decided by the Tahsildar by the end
of October, 2016. The parties undertake to appear before the
Tahsildar on 11-7-2016.
8. The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid
directions. There would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
//MULEY//
