Bombay High Court
Moti Laxman Govind Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 20 December, 2017
Bench: V. V. Kankanwadi
1 WP 6767-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6767 OF 2017
Moti Laxman @ Govind Pawar,
Age 41 years, Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Wadgodri Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna. .. Petitioner
VS.
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Asst. / Dy. Director of Land Records,
Damadi Mahel, Behind Panchayat
Samiti, Aurangabad.
3. District Superintendent of Land
Records, Administrative Building,
IInd Floor, Jalna. .. Respondents
----
Mr. A. M. Gholap, Advocate and Shri G. C. Navandar,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for
respondents No.1 to 3.
----
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. J.
DATE OF RESERVING
THE JUDGMENT : 29-11-2017.
DATE OF PRONOUNCING
THE JUDGMENT : 20-12-2017.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:22:07 :::
2 WP 6767-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi. J.)
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned
advocates for the parties appearing finally, by consent.
2. The present petitioner is the original appellant who has
invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227
of Constitution of India with a prayer to quash order dated 30-09-2016
issued by respondent No.2 and to remand the matter to respondent
No.3.
3. The factual matrix leading to the petition are that, the
petitioner had applied for correction in the area in the revenue record
of Gut No.197 of village Antravali Sarati Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna on 23-
04-2015. The said application was given to respondent No.2, who had
thereafter made over the application to the respondent No.3 for its
disposal according to law. Hearing was not given to the petitioner but
the respondent No.3 directly informed the decision dated 20-08-2015
rejecting the application given by the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner preferred appeal under Section 247 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code before respondent No.2 with a specific prayer for
remand of the matter to respondent No.3. When the petitioners'
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:22:07 :::
3 WP 6767-2017
Advocate went to the office of respondent No.2 for collecting the
Humdast of the notice on 21-09-2015, he was informed that the
appeal has been decided against the petitioner. Thereafter, the
petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2760 of
2016 challenging the said orders. The writ petition came to be allowed
and after setting aside the order, this Court had remitted the matter to
respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 in fact should have taken note
of the reason quoted by this Court and ought to have remitted the
matter further to respondent No.3. However, no such decision has
been given. On the contrary it has been informed, without giving
opportunity to hear to the petitioner again, that the appeal is
dismissed. Hence, the petitioner has filed present petition.
4. The application has been objected by the respondents
stating that, after perusing all the documents and hearing the
arguments of both the sides, the appeal has been dismissed.
Therefore, there is absolutely no necessity to reconsider the said
decision.
5. In order to cut short I would like to say that, both the
learned counsels have submitted arguments in support of their
respective contentions.
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:22:07 :::
4 WP 6767-2017
6. It is to be noted that, the petitioner had filed an
application stating that, the land Gut No.197 admeasuring 7-H 8-R
situated at village Antravali Sarati Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna should be
measured and correct measurement should be shown in the record. It
appears that, without giving an opportunity to the petitioner to
putforth his say, the said application came to be dismissed. The appeal
was preferred by the petitioner. At the time of disposal of the appeal
also, the principle of natural justice were not adhered to, and
therefore, the petitioner approached this court in Writ Petition
No.2760 of 2016. It has been observed by this Court that, the
impugned order in appeal is in flagrant violation of principles of
natural justice, and therefore, the parties were relegated before the
respondent No.2.
7. After the matter was relegated, it appears that, arguments
on behalf of the appellant i.e. petitioner were advanced by way of
written arguments through advocate. A specific point was raised and
prayer was made that, since the present respondent No.3 had not
given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, his order be set aside
and the matter be remanded. However, it appears that, appellate
forum i.e. respondent No.2 himself collected the documents and
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:22:07 :::
5 WP 6767-2017
disposed of the appeal. In affidavit-in-reply on behalf of respondents
No.2 and 3, it has been stated that, the prayer of the petitioner in
respect of correction of the land is without any merit as well as
without any substance and cannot be considered under the relevant
provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. There is absolutely no
reason given in the said affidavit as to why a specific opportunity of
hearing was not given. Mere submissions of written arguments does
not amount to a proper hearing.
8. Furthermore, when it was brought to the notice of the
appellate authority that, the authority before whom initially the
application was made had not given an opportunity to the petitioner to
produce documents or putforth his say, then the appellate authority
ought to have merely sent back the matter for collection of evidence
and submission by the parties. Collection of evidence cannot be said
to be the job of the appellate authority; which has been in fact done in
this case under the impugned order by respondent No.2. When
respondent No.3 had not adhered to the basic principles of natural
justice, the appellate forum ought to have remitted the matter for
adherence of those principles. When authorities have not acted as per
the law, under such circumstance the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of
::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 02:22:07 :::
6 WP 6767-2017
this Court will have to be invoked, and therefore, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
1) The writ petition is hereby allowed.
2) The impugned order dated 30-09-2016 passed by
respondent No.2 is hereby quashed and set aside.
3) Respondent No.2 is directed to remit back the matter
to respondent No.3 for its decision on application dated
23-04-2015 as per the law.
4) Rule is made absolute in above terms.
5) Petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 on 1 st
January, 2018.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
JUDGE
vjg/-.
