Bombay High Court
Aneba Yesaji Pandhare ... vs Bhiwara Kondu Jadhav And Others on 5 May, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.3116 OF 1994
Aneba S/o Yesaji Pandhare,
Since deceased, through his
legal representative - son-
Baburao S/o Aneba Pandhare,
Age-34 years, Occu-Agriculture and
Service, R/o Nagzari, Tal.Hingoli,
Dist.Parbhani PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Bhiwara s/o Kondu Jadhav,
Age-Major, Occu-Agriculture,
R/o Bhosi, Tq.Hingoli.
Dist.Parbhani,
2. Sadashiv S/o Sakhru Jadhav,
Age-Major, Occu. and Resi. As above,
3. Ikram S/o Guja Jadhav,
Age-Major, Occu, and Resi. as above,
4. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS
Mr.N.N.Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mrs.S.S.Raut, AGP for the respondent / State.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 05/05/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. This petition was Admitted by order dated 23/09/1994.
Interim relief has not been granted.
khs/May 2016/3116-d
2. Despite Court service, the respondents have neither caused an
appeared through an Advocate nor have they appeared in person.
Petition is of the year 1994 and therefore I have permitted the
petitioner to proceed with the matter.
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 19/12/1986
delivered by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Camp at
Parbhani by which Appeal No.57/1/1986/Parbhani filed by the
respondents u/s 6 of The Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to
Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 has been allowed and the order of the
Tahsildar dated 25/02/1986 has been set aside.
4. The issue before this Court is as to whether the Collector can
exercise his suo-motu powers when in an earlier round of litigation,
the grievance put forth by the petitioner has been considered and
turned down.
5. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tahsildar, Hingoli in
Case No.79/ADMS/3 which was instituted on 04/05/1979. By the
said application, the petitioner sought restoration of possession of
land Survey No.29/AA admeasuring 12 acres 20 gunthas situated at
khs/May 2016/3116-d
village Nagazari under the 1974 Act. The said land was earlier sold
on 17/12/1970 to the respondents. The Tahsildar, Hingoli was
approached by the respondents after 9 years. He considered the
limitation prescribed in the light of the circular dated 22/10/1974
and concluded that as the application for restoration of possession
was not submitted within the limitation of 3 years, the application
was time barred and hence rejected by order dated 05/05/1980.
6. The petitioner, therefore, approached the learned M.R.T. by
filing case No.165/A/80/Parbhani. By its order dated 05/01/1981,
the learned M.R.T. dismissed the appeal on the ground that the same
was time barred u/s 3 of the 1974 Act. It is an admitted position
that the petitioner has not assailed the order dated 05/05/1980
delivered by the Tahsildar and 05/01/1981 delivered by the learned
M.R.T. either before this Court or any other Court having
jurisdiction.
7. After 5 years, the Tahsildar Hingoli suo-motu reopened the
same File No.79/ADMS/3, which was considered upon by his order
dated 05/05/1980, notwithstanding the fact that the said order was
not set aside by any superior authority or by the Court. The
Tahsildar observed that as the Desk Officer of T.N.C. Commissioner's
khs/May 2016/3116-d
Office, Aurangabad vide letter dated 01/08/1985 directed the
Tahsildar to register the case as suo-motu u/s 3 of the 1974 Act, he
had restarted the hearing of the matter u/s 3 of the Act. He, then,
delivered his order dated 25/02/1986 directing that the possession
held by the respondents be restored to the petitioner/Tribal.
8. The said order dated 25/02/1986 was challenged by the
respondents in Appeal No.57/A/1986/Parbhani u/s 6 of the Act and
by judgment dated 19/12/1986, the learned M.R.T. came to a
conclusion that once the application was filed voicing the grievance
of the petitioner and the same was considered by the Tahsildar as
well as the M.R.T., there could not be any suo-motu proceedings.
The Tribunal concluded on the basis of the reported judgment of this
Court in the matter of Wasudeo Shriram Bhonde and others Vs.
Chintaman Waman Purohit, 1983 MH.L.J. 335 that the power of suo-
motu hearing in the matter can not be enforced when the matter was
already dealt with in an earlier round of litigation and exercise of suo-
motu powers was not to water down the earlier proceedings. The
appeal was, therefore, allowed.
9. Mr.Shinde, learned Advocate has strenuously submitted that
the exercise of suo-motu powers ought not to be interfered with. I am
khs/May 2016/3116-d
unable to accede to his submissions since the scope of exercise of
suo-motu powers is always in the absence of any of the parties failing
to exercise any right vested in them by law. The suo-motu power is
to ensure that no person benefits out of the ignorance of any other
person.
10. In the instant matter, the petitioner had already set the process
of Law in motion by filing their first application on 04/05/1979.
Same was dismissed by order dated 05/05/1980. The appeal of the
petitioner was dismissed by order dated 05/01/1981. After having
exercised its right and having travelled upto the learned M.R.T. in the
appeal, the suo-motu powers of the Collector cannot be utilized in
such a fashion to undo the result of the earlier round of litigation.
11. In the light of the above, I do not find that the impugned order
is perverse or erroneous. This petition, being devoid of merit, is
therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.
12. It is however observed that in the event the petitioner desires to
assail the orders dated 05/05/1980 and 05/01/1981 delivered by the
Tahsildar, Hingoli and learned M.R.T. Aurangabad respectively, the
time spent by the petitioner before the Tahsildar in the subsequent
khs/May 2016/3116-d
proceedings from 06/08/1985 till passing of this order shall be
considered as a ground for condonation of delay.
13. Pending civil applications, do not survive and hence are
disposed of.
ig ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/May 2016/3116-d
