Munjaji Ramji Shinde Died Through ... vs Shamsundar Damodharrao Sangi And ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 401 Bom

                                      1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY   
                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.256 OF 2016

1.     Munjaji s/o Ramji Shinde,
       (Since deceased through LR's)

1-A    Gunaji s/o Munjaji Shinde,
       Age-58 years, Occu-Agriculture,

2.     Baliram s/o Ramji Shinde,
       (Since deceased through LR's)

2-A    Ramrao s/o Baliram Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

2-B    Shriram s/o Baliram Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

2-C    Sopan s/o Baliram Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

2-D    Rukminbai w/o Baliram Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Household,

3.     Sambhaji s/o Ramji Shinde,
       (Since deceased through LR's)

3-A  Govind s/o Sambhaji Shinde,
     Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

3-B    Nagorao s/o Sambhaji Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist, 

3-C    Dattaram s/o Sambhaji Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,

3-D    Tukaram s/o Sambhaji Shinde,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,
       All R/o Sugaon Bk.
       Tq. and Dist. Nanded,
       Through General Power of Attorney Holder

khs/JAN.2018/256




 ::: Uploaded on - 16/01/2018                  ::: Downloaded on - 17/01/2018 02:12:26 :::
                                          2

       Wasiyoddin s/o Riyazoddin Mujawar,
       Age-Major, Occu-Agriculturist,
       R/o Nanded, Tq. and Dist.Nanded                   -- PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1.     Shamsundar s/o Damodharrao Sangi,
       Age-56 years, Occu-Business,

2.     Suresh s/o Damodharrao Sangi,
       Age-46 years, Occu-Business,
       Both r/o Sarafa Galli, Nanded,
       Tq. and Dist. Nanded                              -- RESPONDENTS 

Mr.G.R.Syed, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.U.B.Bilolikar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 15/01/2018

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the

consent of the parties.

2. I have considered the strenuous submissions of the learned

Advocate for the petitioners and the respondents. With their

assistance, I have gone through the petition paper book.

3. The petitioners have put forth prayer clause 18-B and 18-C as

under :-

"18-B. The judgment and order passed by Learned Presiding

khs/JAN.2018/256

Officer, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad Case No.1/C/2015/N dated 22/07/2015 thereby refusing to condone delay in filing Review Petition against the order dated 28/11/2006 passed on Roznama in file No.TNC/Revision-4/B/ 2006/N may kindly be quashed and set aside.

18-C. Application for delay condonation in review petition against the order dated 28/11/2006 passed by the then Officer in-charge i.e. Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad on Roznama in file No.TNC/Revision-4/B/2006/N may pleased be allowed in its entirety."

4. It appears from the record and the submissions of the litigating

sides that their ancestors were before the Special Tribunal which

delivered its verdict in Spl./38/E/1/58/LNG on 22/10/1960. In

Tenancy Revision No.4/B/2006/N of 2006 filed by the respondents

against these petitioners by way of a revision u/s 91 of the

Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 and for

challenging the judgment of the Additional Collector, Nanded dated

30/12/2005 in Tenancy Appeal No.2004/LR/TNC/Appeal/CR-08, a

compromise was arrived at between the litigating sides on

28/11/2006. The compromise terms have been placed on record and

the proceedings were disposed of by all the parties accepting the

judgment of the Special Tribunal dated 22/10/1960.

khs/JAN.2018/256

5. The petitioners approached the Tahsildar for making a

grievance that the compromise has not been implemented, vide

application dated 08/03/2011. Since the Tahsildar concluded that

he has no jurisdiction, they approached the Hon'ble Minister by filing

a revision on 24/03/2013. By order dated 11/10/2013, it was

concluded that the State has no jurisdiction in this matter. Hence

the petitioners preferred an appeal on 15/01/2015 before the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.1/C/2015/N

alongwith an application for condonation of delay u/s 322 of the

M.L.R. Code, 1966. By an order dated 22/07/2015 impugned in this

petition, the M.R.T. concluded that the compromise at issue has been

implemented and the parties have acted in furtherance of the terms

set out therein. On the ground of delay, as well as on the merits, the

application was rejected.

6. Though Mr.Syed, learned Advocate has drawn my attention to

the entire history of this litigation from 1960 onwards, the fact

remains that the grievance put forth is that the compromise has not

been implemented and hence it needs to be set aside. Mr.Bilolikar,

learned Advocate has relied upon the affidavit in reply of the

respondents and has pointed out on the basis of the record that the

compromise was fully implemented and the grievance of these

khs/JAN.2018/256

petitioners pertains to events which have occurred after the

implementation of the compromise terms.

7. With the assistance of the learned Advocates, I have gone

through the compromise terms dated 28/11/2006. On the basis of

the record, Mr.Syed submits that the 3 portions of land, all

admeasuring 1 acre 16 gunthas each in Gat No.129 in S.No.58 were

handed over to Munjaji Ramji Shinde, LR's of Baliramji and LR's of

Sambhaji Ramji. It is not disputed that it is not mentioned in the

compromise terms as to how these 3 lands were to be dealt with by

the LR's of those persons mentioned in the compromise terms. It is

also undisputed that all the parties accepted the judgment dated

22/10/1960 delivered by the Special Tribunal. As such, it is

apparent that as the respondents have handed over the 3 portions of

land as agreed upon in the compromise terms and the terms were

fully implemented.

8. Pursuant to the above, the petitioners are aggrieved by the fact

that some amongst them sold the same lands to the respondents and

did not receive sufficient consideration It is nowhere mentioned in

the compromise terms as to how those 3 portions of land were to be

utilized or disposed of. As such, the grievance of these petitioners

khs/JAN.2018/256

does not have its roots in the compromise terms which were fully

implemented. Their grievance that they did not receive sufficient or

proper consideration for the sale of the 3 portions of the land, is a

different cause of action.

9. I have considered the merits of this matter at the insistence of

the learned Advocate for the petitioners who contended that the

petitioners have a very good case on the merits and as such the delay

of 5 years in approaching a wrong authority i.e. the Tahsildar, should

be condoned.

10. I find that the application for condonation of delay filed by the

petitioners is on the basis of the compromise terms purportedly

having not been acted upon by the respondents, which is an

unsustainable ground. Hence no purpose would be served in

condoning the delay of 5 years.

11. Considering the above, this petition, being devoid of merits, is

therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/JAN.2018/256