Radhakishan Babulal Bassaye Died ... vs Sandu Dadamiya And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 6573 Bom

                                                         Writ Petition No.151/2012
                                         :: 1 ::



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                  WRIT PETITION NO.151 OF 2012 WITH
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2579 OF 2012


 Radhakishan s/o Babulal Bassaye,
 Died, through L.Rs.
 Sanjay s/o Radhakishan Bassaye
 and others                                             ... PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 Sandu s/o Dadamiya,
 Died through L.Rs.
 Shaikh Ali s/o Shaikh Sandu
 and others                                             ... RESPONDENTS

                             .......
 Shri V.D. Salunke, Advocate for petitioners
 Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondents No.2(i) to 2(iii)
                             .......

                                  CORAM :          R. G. AVACHAT, J.

                  Date of reserving order : 16th February, 2021
                  Date of pronouncing order : 21st April, 2021


 ORDER:

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the

judgment and order dated 20/10/2011, passed by the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), Aurangabad in Case

No.60-B-2004-A, upholding the judgment and order dated

31/5/1990, passed by the Mamlatdar in Case

No.1989/Tenancy/CR/36 as also the judgment and order

dated 3/9/2004, passed by the Deputy Collector (Land

Writ Petition No.151/2012 :: 2 ::

Reforms), Aurangabad.

2. The petitioners claim through Babulal Bassaye,

owners of the writ land. It is the case of the petitioners that,

the writ lands old Survey Nos.45, 49, 50 and 51 i.e. New

Survey Nos.12361, 12362, 12363 and 12366, situated at

Baijipura, Aurangabad originally belonged to Salarjang. Those

lands came to one Ranchhoddas as Pattedar. The father of

the petitioners i.e. Radhakishan had purchased those lands

from Ranchhoddas. The respondents - Sandu and Baksu

claimed to be tenants in the said lands. They obtained

possession of the writ lands from the father of the petitioners

under the panchanamas dated 21/1/1975 and 28/1/1975.

The respondents thereafter sold the writ lands without prior

permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy and

Agricultural lands At, 1950 (for short the Act) to various

persons. Radhakishan (original applicant), therefore, filed

application before the Mamlatdar under Section 98-C of the

Act for forfeiting the writ lands to the Government on account

of having been sold in breach of provisions of Section 50-B of

the Act. The Mamlatdar, vide his judgment and order dated

31/5/1990, rejected the application holding the original

applicant to have failed to prove his title to the writ lands.

The order passed by the Mamlatdar came to be upheld vide

judgment and order dated 3/9/2004, passed by the Deputy

Writ Petition No.151/2012 :: 3 ::

Collector (L.R.), Aurangabad. The petitioners have been

unsuccessful before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as

well. The petitioners are, therefore, before this Court in this

Writ Petition.

3. Shri V.D. Salunke, learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that, the writ lands originally

belonged to the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners. The

respondents obtained the possession of the writ lands

claiming to have been tenants therein. After obtaining

possession of the writ lands, the respondents sold it to various

persons without obtaining prior permission of the Collector.

The sale transactions, thus, became invalid and the writ lands

became liable to be forfeited to the Government. The learned

counsel took me through the copies of the sale deed,

possession receipt and the relevant papers in File

No.RB-WA/17/74, dated 31/3/1975 and submitted that all the

authorities below have ignored these documents and passed

the impugned orders. The learned counsel, therefore, urged

for allowing the Writ Petition.

4. Shri A.M. Gaikwad, learned counsel for

respondents No.2(i) to 2(iii) would, on the other hand, submit

that all the three authorities below have concurrently recorded

finding of fact that the petitioners have failed to establish

Writ Petition No.151/2012 :: 4 ::

their title to the writ lands. He would further submit that, the

writ lands are situated within the limits of Municipal

Corporation, Aurangahad. Those have been declared slum

area. Hundreds of tenements have come up on the writ

lands. The writ lands have changed many a hands. The

occupants of the writ lands are not the parties to this Writ

Petition. If the petition is allowed, they would be affected

persons. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

5. I have considered the rival submissions and

perused the documents relied on by the learned counsel for

the petitioners. Both, the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector

(L.R.) have given a finding of fact holding the petitioners to

have failed to establish their title to the writ lands. The

petitioners unequivocally admit in the petition that the writ

lands belong to Sajarjang Estate. One Ranchhoddas was a

Pattedar of the writ lands. Radhakishan, predecessor-in-title

of the petitioners purchased the writ lands from Ranchhoddas.

The papers in Case No.RB-WS-III/AR/17/74 indicate that

Sandu, the original respondent No.1 and other had moved an

application seeking possession of the writ land from

Radhakishan and others. It was their claim that Radhakishan

was the landlord, Sandu and others were tenants in the said

land. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, these

documents go a long way to establish that the writ lands were

Writ Petition No.151/2012 :: 5 ::

held by the father of the petitioners as owner thereof and the

original respondent No.1 was a tenant thereunder under the

possession receipts, the writ lands came to be delivered into

possession of Sandu and Baksu.

6. It is true that in the first blush, these documents

make out a case propounded by the petitioners herein. It

has, however, to be considered that the writ lands originally

belonged to Salarjang Estate. Ranchhoddas was a Pattedar.

Status of the Pattedar cannot be equated with a landlord.

There is nothing to indicate that Ranchhoddas - Pattedar was,

however, authorised by Salarjang to sell the writ lands. The

Mamlatdar has observed that, in view of the decision of the

High Court dated 26/4/1960, the writ lands belonged to

Salarjang. The original applicant Radhakishan did not have

any concern with the writ lands. Furthermore, the writ lands

have now been situated within the limits of Municipal

Corporation. The area has been declared as a slum. The writ

lands have been sub-divided into hundreds of plots, those

have been purchased by number of persons. Tenements have

come up on the writ lands. None of the occupiers of the

tenements standing on the writ lands are before this Court. If

any adverse order is likely to be passed in this Writ Petition,

those occupants need to be before this Court. In spite of

having been aware of this position, none of them have been

Writ Petition No.151/2012 :: 6 ::

impleaded as party respondents.

7. Since all the three authorities below have

concurrently negatived the claim of the petitioners and

admittedly the writ lands originally belonged to Salarjang

Estate, and Ranchhoddas, through whom the petitioners

claim, was a Pattedar and not the owner of the lands, it,

therefore, cannot be observed that the relationship between

Ranchhoddas and the original respondent No.1 was that of a

landlord and tenant. It is reiterated that, writ lands have

changed many a hands. Lands have been sub-divided into

plots. Hundreds of tenements have come up on the writ

lands. The tenement-holders are are not parties to this Writ

Petition. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, no interference is, therefore,

warranted with the impugned orders. In view of the aforesaid

factual backdrop, the writ petition fails. It is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, Civil

Application No.2579/2012 stands disposed of.

( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE

fmp/-