Bombay High Court
Ashruba Bhaguji ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 6 July, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4481 OF 1998
1. Ashruba S/o. Bhaguji Gore,
deceased L.Rs.
a) Shivaji S/o. Ashruba Gore,
Age. 45 yrs,
b) Uttamrao S/o. Ashruba Gore,
Age. 40 yrs,
c) Shainath S/o. Ashruba Gore,
Age. 34 yrs,
d) Baban S/o. Ashruba Gore,
Age. 27 yrs,
e) Arjun S/o. Ashruba Gore,
Age. 19 yrs,
2. Rambhau S/o. Kashinath Gore,
Age. 51 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
3. Maruti S/o. Kashinath Gore,
Age. 56 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
4. Shamrao S/o. Kashinath Gore,
Age. 41 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
5. Shrimant S/o. Bhaguji Gore,
Age. 56 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
6. Jivan S/o. Sahebrao Gore,
Age. 36 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
7. Pralhad S/o. Sahebrao Gore,
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:02:34 :::
2
Age. 31 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
8. Babu S/o. Kishan Gore,
Age. 51 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
9. Laxman S/o. Kondiba Gore,
Age. 55 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
10. Appa S/o. Karbhari Gore,
Age. 26 yrs,
11. Deo Kondiba Gore,
Age. 35 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
12. Vithal S/o. Kondiba Gore,
Age. 31 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
13. Santram Bhagwan Gore,
Age. 19 yrs, Occ. Agri.,
14. Vijay Bhagwan Gore,
Age. 21 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
15. Navnath Sahebrao Gore,
Age. 29 yrs., Occ. Agri.,
All residents of village
Hivara Pahadi, Tq. & Dist. Beed. ...Petitioners.
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2. The Additional Collector,
(Atiyat) Beed.
3. The Deputy Collector,
(Atiyat) Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2017 00:02:34 :::
3
4. The Tahsildar, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
5. Kazi Sabiuddin S/o. Kazi Inamtullah,
Age. Major, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Georai, Dist. Beed.
6. The Designated Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
at Aurangabad. ...Respondents.
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.G. Mete.
AGP for Respondent No. 1 to 4 : Shri S.K. Tambe.
Advocate for Respondent No. 5 : Smt. M.A. Kulkarni.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated : 06th July, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated
07/09/1998, delivered by the learned Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Aurangabad, by which, case No. 40/B/97/B has been
dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
2. This Court by judgment delivered in Shivraj Manik
Bargale and others Versus Shankar Hanumant Hude and
another [2002 (2) All M.R. 312]
, has held that notwithstanding,
the amendment carried out in Schedule J of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, to entertain and decide the Appeal or
Revision under Section 315 will not be taken away.
3. Learned advocate for the respondents has submitted that
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, is now routinely taking up
such Revision Applications filed under Section 315 of the
M.L.R.C. read with Section 11 of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries
Act, 1952.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously submits
on the basis of his pleadings that the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, was addressed only to the extent of the jurisdiction
issue. Though by the impugned order, it has concluded that it
has no jurisdiction, it has also delved upon the merits of the
matter.
5. Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
impugned order dated 07/09/1998 in case No. 40/B/97/B
stands quashed and set aside and case No. 40/B/97/B stands
restored to the file of the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
at Aurangabad.
7. It is informed that respondent No. 5 / Kazi Sabiuddin
Kazi Inamtullah, who was respondent No. 5 before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, has passed away. Mrs.
Kulkarni, learned advocate submitted that this information may
be treated as being due compliance of Order XXII Rule 10 A of
the Code of Civil Procedure. Learned counsel for the
petitioners / original revision petitioners submits that on the
date of the appearance he will move an application for bringing
LRs of the deceased respondent No. 5 on record before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad.
8. Learned advocates for the respective sides agree to
appear before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at
Aurangabad on 11/08/2017 at 11.00 a.m. As such, formal
notices need not be issued by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, except to the LRs of the deceased Kazi Sabiuddin Kazi
Inamtulla. Needless to state, since the impugned order dated
07/09/1998, has been quashed and set aside, the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal shall decide the Revision Petition of the
petitioners on its own merits.
9. Learned advocates jointly submit that the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal may decide the Revision within a stipulated
time frame. I am inclined to accept this request as the Revision
is of 1997. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall, therefore,
decide the Revision Application as expeditiously as possible and
preferably on / or before 28/02/2018. Until then, the
protection granted by this Court to the petitioners by order
dated 13/10/1998, shall continue till the disposal of the
Revision Application. The said interim order reads as under :
"In the meantime, possession of the petitioners not to
be disturbed."
10. Considering the rival contentions of the parties that the
agricultural land at issue is of about 40 Acres, the petitioners
shall not create any third party interest and shall not alienate
the said property till the decision in the Revision Application.
This embargo shall apply even to the assignees or
representatives of the petitioners.
11. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
S.P.C.
