Bombay High Court
Sau. Mrudula W/O Arun Deshpande ... vs Jaikumar Shaligram Chandak And 10 ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
1 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.35 OF 2014
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1105 OF 2000
Sou. Mrudula w/o. Arun Deshpande (Dead)
1(a) Shri. Sanjay s/o. Arun Deshpande,
Aged major. Occ. Serivce
1(b) Shri. Ravindra s/o. Arun Deshpande,
Aged major, Occ. Service
1(c) Shri. Mayuresh s/o. Arun Deshpande,
Aged major, Occ. Serivce,
All R/o. Plot No. 12, Yashodhara
Nagar, Phase II, Jaitala Road,
Nagpur ... APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1 Jaikumar Shaligram Chandak,
Aged about 58 yrs, Occ. Business,
2 Vijaykumar Shaligram Chandak
Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business,
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:13:35 :::
2 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
3 *Smt. Saraswati wd/o. Shaligram Chandak,
Aged about 82 yrs., Occ. Nil
Respondent No 1 to 3 R/o. Balaji Plot,
Khamgaon, Dist Buldhana
(*As per court's order dtd. 12.8.2016
LPA is dismissed against R-3 & her LR's
if any by the end of 26.8.2016.)
4 Abhaykumar s/o. Lalchand Shah,
Aged about 53 yrs.
5 Babibai w/o. Rasiklal Mehta,
Aged about 73 years,
6 **Ratnabai w/o. Vijaykumar Shah,
Aged 68 years,
Respondent No. 4 to 6 are R/o. Balapur,
Akola
(**As per court's order dtd. 12.8.2016
LPA is dismissed against R-3 & her LR's
if any by the end of 26.8.2016.)
7 Dipak Shrikant Kachare,
Aged about 47 years,
R/o. 16 Chandan Co-operative
Housing Society, Shastri Nagar,
Dombivalli(West), Dist. Thane,
8 Sau. Arti w/o. Sanjeev Moghe,
Aged about 46 years,
R/o. B-108, Maroti Darshan,
Plot No. RX-4, Milap Nagar,
M.I.D.C. Dombivalli (East), Dist. Thane
9 Mohan s/o. Shankar Kachare,
Ageda bout 58 years,
R/o. 16 Chandan Co-operative Housing
Society, Shastri Nagar, Dombivalli (West)
Dist. Thane
::: Uploaded on - 29/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/06/2017 00:13:35 :::
3 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
10 Sau. Pramila w/o. Dinkar Dedhe,
Aged about 73 years,
R/o. Jalgaon Ward No. 4,
Jalgaon Jamod, Dist. Buldhana
11 Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur ...RESPONDENTS
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr.G.N. Khanzode, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. M.G.Sarda, Advocate for the Respondent No.1
Ms. Kalia, AGP for respondent No.11.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
R.B.DEO, J.
DATE : 23.06.2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J) :
1. Judgment delivered by learned Single Judge of this
Court on 10.1.2011 in writ petition No. 1105/2000 is
questioned by respondent no. 7 therein, in this appeal. It
appears that there was delay in filing LPA and it was
condoned by this Court on 18.12.2014. On 15.1.2015, this
Court issued notice for final disposal in LPA. For a while,
we have heard Advocate Shri. Khanzode for appellant,
4 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
Advocate Shri Sarda for respondent no.1 and AGP for
respondent no.11.
2. The adverse order passed by Sub Divisional Officer
rejecting challenge to determination of purchase price in
proceedings under Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands
Vidarbha Region Act, 1958 was questioned by the brothers
of present appellant in Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a
Revision. The Revision was filed on 14.5.1998 by them.
When Revision was tendered, revision applicants pointed
out 23.3.1998 as the date of knowledge and accordingly
claimed that being preferred within 60days, Revision was
within time. The respondents objected to it and claimed
communication of adverse order in the month of January,
1998 only. Hence, an application for condonation of delay
was also filed. It appears that respondent pointed out
RPAD notices sent to appellants by office of Sub Divisional
Officer and claimed that because of those notices,
impugned order was within knowledge of appellant before
20.1.1998. Revision applicants before Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal disputed this.
5 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
3. Parties lead evidence. Postal authorities were
examined. The postal acknowledgment were got exhibited
through the Public Relation Inspector of Post Office
Dombivalli (West). His evidence shows that there was no
delivery stamp or postal receipt number on those
acknowledgments. The fact that acknowledgments had
signature appearing on it, is not in dispute. The revision
applicant examined himself and during his cross-
examination, he accepted his signature on acknowledgment
filed as document no. A-3. That acknowledgment is
addressed to his brother Mohan and little later he denied
his signature upon it but lastly he assumed non committal
stand and answer given by him reads "I did not say
anything about signature and any reason thereof". After
appreciating entire material on record, Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal found Revision belated. Discussion by
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in paragraph no. 6 of its
order dated 18.1.2000 looks into all relevant dates. Impact
of signature of advocate on 23.3.1993 of taking note of
order of SDO has also been looked into.
6 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
4. Not satisfied with this refusal to condone delay,
brothers of present appellant alongwith her sisters filed writ
petition no. 1105/2000 before leaned Single Judge.
Present appellant was respondent no. 7 in this petition.
The learned Single Judge on 10.1.2011 has considered
arguments and in paragraph no. 6 through a proper
application of mind maintained order of Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. This adjudication by learned Single
Judge is questioned by respondent no. 7 in present LPA.
5. At the threshold, Advocate Shri Sarda appearing for
respondents who sought determination of purchase price,
opposing LPA, submitted that appellant who did not
challenge adverse order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
can not maintain present LPA.
6. Advocate Shri. Khanzode has submitted that interest
of appellant, her sister and brothers was always identical
and because appellant was not available at relevant time,
she was for convenient impleaded as respondent before
learned Single Judge. As a respondent also, she was
espousing the case of petitioners before learned Single
7 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
Judge. He states that in this situation as injury is sustained
by appellant, appeal filed by her is maintainable.
7. Inviting attention to evidence on record, he contends
that postal acknowledgments were itself brought into doubt
and as such, the finding that on or before 20.1.1998
appellant had knowledge of adverse order of SDO is
incorrect. Without prejudice he says that if limitation is
counted from 20.1.1998, there is delay of hardly few days
and it could have been condoned by Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal.
8. Shri. Sarda in reply submits that genuineness of
acknowledgements on record was never in dispute. Postal
authorities have proved those acknowledgements.
Signatures upon those acknowledgments are also exhibited
and person who entered the witness box has also admitted
his signature. He submits that in this situation, a story not
pleaded in support of prayer for condonation of delay can
not be allowed to be evolved for the first time before this
Court. He further prays for dismissal of appeal.
8 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
9. The perusal of Appeal Memo before us reveals that
alongwith respondent no.1 & 2, one lady by name Smt.
Saraswati wd/o Shaligram Chandak was also party
respondent no.3.
10. At this stage, it will be proper to point out that
between members of Deshpande family to whom appellant
claims to represent and members of Chandak family there
was a dispute about co-tenancy of an agricultural land. It
was resolved by compromise and hence co-tenancy of each
family was accepted. The members of Deshpande family
claim that suppressing their share in tenanted property,
Chandak family moved Tahsildar for determination of
purchase price of tenanted property. Tahsildar accordingly
adjudicated that price. This adjudication of price was then
questioned by Deshpande family by filing appeal before
SDO.
11. Thus, it is apparent that members of Chandak family
have got interest in the determination of purchase price by
Revenue authorities. Respondent no. 1 and 2 before this
9 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
Court appear to be sons of co-tenant Shri Shaligram,
respondent no. 3 was his widow.
12. As per orders of this Court dated 12.8.2016, LPA has
been dismissed against respondent no. 3 Saraswatibai.
With the result, order passed by lower authorities i.e. SDO
or by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision and then
by learned Single Judge in writ jurisdiction has attend
finality. As the sale price of land held by Shri Shaligram as
co-tenant has been worked out, the order can not be read
as joint and several one and there is no question of
touching interest or share of the deceased Saraswatibai, in
the matter. Since the order has become final in her favour,
it has to become final against respondent nos. 1 & 2 also.
13. In any case, after appreciation of evidence on record,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has arrived at proper
findings. Thus, findings with due application of mind are
maintained by learned Single Judge in exercise of writ
jurisdiction. The interference would have been possible
had the findings been demonstrated to be perverse or then
order without jurisdiction. This is not the contention in
10 jlpa35of14inwp1105of00.odt
present matter. The adjudication by learned Single Judge
therefore, deserves to be maintained.
14. In view of this discussion, we do not find it necessary
to comment upon the locus or status of appellant to file and
prosecute this LPA. Even for that purpose grant of
opportunity to respondent no. 3 is essential, otherwise our
adjudication will be only academic. Hence, we dismiss LPA.
Rule discharged. No cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
belkhede, PA
