Bombay High Court
Madhavdas S/O Jankidas Mohota & ... vs Addl Collector, Wardha & Anr on 13 July, 2017
Bench: I.K. Jain
WP 5010.08.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5010 OF 2008
1] Madhavdas s/o Jankidas Mohota,
Aged Major, through P.F.A. Holder,
Tarachand Ramkrishna Dangey,
Resident of Rammandir Ward,
Hinganghat, Taluka-Hinganghat,
District-Wardha.
2] Sanjaykumar s/o Krishnakumar Mohota,
Aged Major, Resident of N.J. Mohota
Ginning Factory, In front of
Police Station, Wardha,
Tahsil and District-Wardha. .. PETITIONERS
.. VERSUS ..
1] Additional Collector,
Wardha District, Wardha.
2] Sub-Divisional Officer,
Wardha, District-Wardha. .. RESPONDENTS
..........
Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Petitioners,
Shri H.D. Dubey, AGP for Respondents.
..........
CORAM : KUM. INDIRA JAIN, J.
DATED : JULY 13, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT
This petition takes an exception to the order dated
28.3.2008 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.5/NAA-
48/2004-05.
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:48:00 :::
WP 5010.08.odt 2
2] Few facts relevant for the decision of this petition
may be stated as under :
Sakharam Patil and his brother were owners of
Survey No.54 ad-measuring about 10 acres situated at
Hinganghat, District-Wardha. On 20.11.1902, owners
executed permanent lease in favour of predecessor in title
of petitioners. On part of land is being used for Ginning and
Pressing Factory and on remaining part residential houses
have been constructed. Tenants are occupying those
residential houses.
3] On 25.7.1996, Tahsildar fixed non-agricultural
assessment of said land at Rs.924/- per year for the period
from 1979 to 1991. Respondent no.2 reopened the
proceedings suo-motu on 3.3.2005 and directed petitioners
to pay an amount of Rs.13,14,550/- as non-agricultural
assessment for the period from 1976-77 to 2004-05. Appeal
was preferred against the order of respondent no.2 on two
grounds : (i) permission as required under Section 258 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not obtained by
respondent no.2 before taking up the revenue proceedings
and (ii) principles of natural justice were violated. Vide
order dated 30.5.2005, the order passed by respondent
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:48:00 :::
WP 5010.08.odt 3
no.2 was set aside by respondent no.1. Matter was
remanded for fresh decision.
4] After remand, on 28.3.2008 respondent no.2
directed the petitioners to pay amount of Rs.18,28,920/-
towards non-agricultural assessment. The said order was
carried in appeal. Respondent no.1 directed the petitioners
to deposit Rs.3,83,760/- as a condition precedent for grant
of stay. The said order is the subject matter of challenge in
present writ petition.
5] Heard Shri Mirza, learned counsel for petitioners
and Shri Dubey, learned AGP for respondents.
6] Since the writ petition is against an interim order
passed in appeal pending before respondent no.1, this court
is not inclined to go into the merits and demerits of the
case. However, fact remains that initially matter was
remanded by appellate authority to respondent no.2 for its
fresh decision and remand was basically on two grounds :
(i) permission under section 258 of the Code was not sought
and (ii) principles of natural justice were violated. It is
undisputed that on remand, respondent no.2 did not seek
permission and proceeded to decide the matter afresh.
::: Uploaded on - 18/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/07/2017 23:48:00 :::
WP 5010.08.odt 4
Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
clearly speaks that if an officer subordinate to a Collector or
subordinate officer proposes to review any order on the
ground other than that of clerical mistake, he shall first
obtain the sanction of the authority to whom he is
immediate subordinate. Though in affidavit-in-reply,
respondents have stated that respondent no.2 proceeded to
decide the case on the direction of superior authority,
nothing is placed on record to support this submission.
7] In this premise, this court finds that the condition
imposed by respondent no.1 for granting stay is
unreasonable and unsustainable in law. The same needs to
be set aside in writ jurisdiction. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition No.5010/2008 is partly allowed.
(ii) Impugned order dated 1.10.2008 passed by
respondent no.1 in Revenue Appeal No.1/NAA-48/2008-09
stands quashed and set aside.
(iii) Non-agricultural assessment made by respondent
no.2 in Case No.5/NAA-48/2004-05 is stayed during
pendency of appeal before appellate authority.
(iv) Considering the nature of dispute and long
pendency of litigation, appellate authority is directed to
decide the appeal within a period of six months.
(v) Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(vi) No costs.
(Kum. Indira Jain, J.)
Gulande, PA
