Bombay High Court
Shriram S/O Rohidas Garad vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 28 February, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp5554.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5554/2014
Shankar s/o Amruta Dalvi,
aged about 54 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Sawargaon (Gore),
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Shri Dhankeshwar Sansthan,
Reg. No.A-90(Yavatmal) Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,
through its President.
3. Yadaorao S/o Jaywantrao Deshmukh,
aged 65 Yrs. ..Deleted.
4. Gopaldas Agrawal,
aged 60 Yrs.
5. Ramesh Bhagwansa Walle,
aged 50 Yrs.
6. Adv. Aashish Panjabrao Deshmukh,
aged 54 Yrs.,
7. Ramrao Marotrao Bokse,
aged 65 Yrs. ..Deleted.
8. Vishwajeet Prabhakar Sarnaik,
aged 45 Yrs.
9. Shri Santoshkumar Ranchhoddas Bajaj,
aged adult, R/o near Dr. Kanchan Gaziyani's
Dispensary, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:20:50 :::
2 wp5554.14
10. Pramod Vitthalrao Raipurkar,
aged 48 Yrs.
11. Shri Dhananjay Abhaykumar Saktekar,
aged adult, R/o C/o Yadaorao Jayantrao
Deshmukh, Shiwaji Ward, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Shri Dwarkadas Ramdev Sharma,
aged adult, R/o Udasin Ward, near
Narsimha Mandir, Pusad, Tq. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..Deleted.
..Respondents.
AND WRIT PETITION NO.5553/2014
1. Ram s/o Baburao Babar,
aged 60 Yrs., Occu. Not Known.
2. Anandrao Baburao Babar,
age 58 Yrs., Occu. Not Known.
3. Ashok Baburao Babar,
age 55 Yrs., Occu. Not Known.
All adult and agriculturist,
R/o Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal. ..Petitioners.
..Vs..
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Shri Dhaneshwar Sansthan,
Reg. No.A-90 (Yavatmal) Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,
through its President.
3. Shri Yadavrao S/o Jayantrao Deshmukh,
aged adult. ..Deleted.
4. Shri Gopaldas Agrawal,
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:20:50 :::
3 wp5554.14
aged adult.
5. Shri Ramesh Bhagwandas Wayle,
aged about adult.
6. Shri Ashish Punjabrao Deshmukh,
aged adult.
7. Shri Ramrao Marotrao Bokse,
aged adult. ..Deleted.
8. Shri Vishwajit Prabhakar Sarnaik,
aged adult.
9. Shri Pramod Vitthalrao Raipurkar,
aged adult, R/o Moti Nagar, Near
House of Bhalekar, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
10. Shri Santoshkumar Ranchhoddas Bajaj,
aged adult, R/o near Dr. Kanchan Gaziyani
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
11. Shri Dhananjay Abhaykumar Saktekar,
aged adult, R/o C/o Yadaorao Jayantrao
Deshmukh, Shiwaji Ward, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Shri Dwarkadas Ramdev Sharma,
aged adult, R/o Udasin Ward, near
Narsimha Mandir, Pusad, Tq. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..Deleted.
..Respondents.
AND WRIT PETITION NO.5555/2014
Shriram S/o Rohidas Garad,
aged adult, Occu. Agriculturist,
R/o Pardi-Pusad, Tah. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..Petitioner.
..Vs..
1. State of Maharashtra,
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:20:50 :::
4 wp5554.14
through its Secretary,
Revenue & Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. Shri Dhankeshwar Sansthan,
Reg. No.A-90(Yeotmal) Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal,
through its President.
3. Yadavrao Jaiwantrao Deshmukh,
aged adult. ..Deleted.
4. Gopaldas Agrawal,
aged adult.
5. Ramesh Bhagwansa Walle,
aged adult.
6. Ad. Ashish Panjabrao Deshmukh,
aged adult.
7. Ramrao Marotrao Bokse,
aged adult. ..Deleted.
8. Vishwajit Prabhakar Sarnaik,
aged adult.
9. Shri Santoshkumar Ranchhoddas Bajaj,
aged adult, R/o near Dr. Kanchan Gaziyani
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
10. Pramod Vitthalrao Raipurkar.
11. Shri Dhananjay Abhaykumar Saktekar,
aged adult, R/o C/o Yadeorao Jaywantrao
Deshmukh, Shiwaji Ward, Pusad,
Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
12. Shri Dwarkadas Ramdev Sharma,
aged adult, R/o Udasin Ward, near
Narsimha Mandir, Pusad, Tq. Pusad,
Distt. Yavatmal. ..Deleted.
..Respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 18:20:50 :::
5 wp5554.14
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri V.N. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for respondent No.8. (..In all petitions)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATE : 28.2.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Common questions arise in these petitions therefore, they are
disposed by common judgment.
2. Heard Shri V.N. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri R.L. Khapre,
Advocate for respondent No.8 and Ms. S.Z. Haider, A.G.P. for respondent No.1.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
4. The landlord (public trust) filed proceedings under Section 120(c)
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,
1958 (for short "Act of 1958") seeking summary eviction of the tenants from
the agricultural lands. In these proceedings, the original non-applicants /
occupants raised an issue that they are protected lessee and are entitled for
statutory ownership of the agricultural lands in question. The Sub-Divisional
Officer referred the parties to the Tenancy Tahsildar for adjudication on the
point raised by the original non-applicants / occupants about conferral of
statutory ownership. The Tenancy Tahsildar exercised his powers under
6 wp5554.14
Section 49A of the Act of 1958 and concluded that the original non-applicants /
occupants are entitled for statutory ownership of the fields in question. The
orders passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar were challenged by the public trust in
appeals which were dismissed. The challenge was carried further before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revisions which were dismissed as
infructuous as according to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal the proceedings
filed by the landlord under Section 120(c) of the Act of 1958 were also
disposed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and against those orders revision
applications were filed.
By the impugned orders, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has
disposed the revision applications filed by the public trust (landlord)
challenging the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer disposing the
applications filed by it under Section 120(c) of the Act of 1958.
5. After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find
that the conclusions of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the
Sub-Divisional Officer could not have referred the parties to the Tenancy
Tahsildar for considering the claim of the original non-applicants / occupants
regarding conferral of statutory ownership, are proper. The learned Advocate
for the original non-applicants / occupants have not been able to point out any
provision which enables the Sub-Divisional Officer to undertake such an
exercise while considering an application filed by the landlord under Section
7 wp5554.14
120(c) of the Act of 1958 which are of summary nature.
As I find that the exercise of powers by the Tenancy Tahsildar under
Section 49A of the Act of 1958 is not proper and the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal has rightly set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar under Section
49A of the Act of 1958 and by the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing the appeals
filed by the landlord (public trust) challenging those orders, the question is
whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has acted properly by directing
summary eviction of the present petitioners who claimed to be legal
representatives of the original tenants.
According to the landlord, an exemption certificate is granted in its
favour under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958 and, therefore, the legal
representatives of the original tenants cannot claim tenancy rights by
inheritance. The present petitioners contend that the exemption certificate
under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958 is not granted in respect of the lands
in question.
In this background, in my view, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
could not have considered the matter on merits specially when the Sub-
Divisional Officer which is the first authority in the matter had not considered
the merits of the matter. It would have been appropriate if the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for
considering the application filed by the landlord (public trust) under Section
120(c) of the Act of 1958.
8 wp5554.14
Hence, the following order:
(i) The orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding
that the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing the appeals filed
by the landlord (public trust) is unsustainable as also the orders passed by the
Tenancy Tahsildar under Section 49A of the Act of 1958 are illegal, are
maintained.
(ii) The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing
summary eviction of the petitioners from the lands in question under Section
120(c) of the Tenancy Act, 1958 is set aside.
(iii) The matters are remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad for
deciding the applications filed by the landlord (public trust) under Section
120(c) of the Act of 1958 afresh.
(iv) The Sub-Divisional Officer shall grant hearing to the concerned
parties and pass orders according to law.
(v) The petitioners and the concerned respondents shall appear before
the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad on 17th April, 2017 and abide by further
orders / instructions in the matters.
The petitions are disposed in the above terms.
In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
