Bombay High Court
Sau. Suman W/O Sudhakar Patil vs Sau. Tarabai Dadaji Tekam And ... on 7 June, 2021
Bench: S. M. Modak
7.FA.340.2021. 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
First Appeal No.340/2021
Sau. Suman W/o Sudhakar Patil Vs. Sau. Tarabai Dadaji Tekam & Ors.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Shri Madhur A. Deo, Advocate for the Appellant.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 7th JUNE, 2021.
Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and
the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was
proper.
Heard learned Advocate Shri Madhur Deo for the
appellant/original non-applicant No.1.
When the present respondent No.5 applied before
learned Special Tribunal, Nagpur for distribution of the
compensation, present respondent Nos.1 to 4 have objected for
disbursal of the amount to present appellant. The predecessor-in-title
of the present appellant has purchased the land from predecessor-in-
title of respondent Nos.1 to 4. The relationship in between the vendor
and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 is disputed by the appellant.
The Sub-divisional Officer, Nagpur has ordered for
restoration of the land on account of non-compliance of the
provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled
Tribes Act, 1974. The appellant went in appeal before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Though the matter was closed for
judgment, it could not be pronounced due to vacancy. In the
meantime, learned Special Tribunal after hearing the contesting
7.FA.340.2021. 2/3
parties, as per the order dated 24 th March, 2021, was pleased to
disburse the compensation to present respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The appellant has challenged the said judgment mainly
on the ground that the Sub-divisional Officer, Chandrapur has not
sent the caste certificate for scrutiny. In support of that, he relied
upon a judgment in the case of Kausalyabai Kisand Dhande Vs. Fakira
Daula Tadvi since deceased through his LRs. Sikandar Fakira Tadvi
and others reported in 2012(5) Mh.L.J 689.
Learned Special Tribunal after going through the
judgment was pleased to observe that the ratio would not be
applicable. It is for the reason that the present appellant has not
disputed the validity of the caste certificate. The second ground of
contention is that in spite of the provisions of Section 26 of the Coal
Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1975, the
jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal is not ousted, and when the dispute
is pending before the Revenue Tribunal, the present Special Tribunal
ought not to have passed the present order.
Issue notice before admission to the respondents,
returnable in 2nd week of July, 2021.
In addition to regular mode of service, the appellant is
permitted to serve the respondent Nos.1 to 5 by hamdast.
Civil Application No.1055/2021
As per the impugned judgment, the amount is already
disbursed to respondent Nos.1 to 4. Learned Advocate Shri Madhur
Deo prayed for issuing direction to these respondents to deposit the
amount in the Court or to issue direction to them not to utilise the
7.FA.340.2021. 3/3
amount. These prayers cannot be considered today. However, I deem
it proper to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 4 to furnish an
undertaking that they will return the amount, if directed by this
Court.
Hence, issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 5 with
following direction:
a) Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to furnish an
undertaking before this Court within a period of 15 days
from their appearance that they will abide as per the
direction given by this Court so far as disbursal of the
amount is concerned.
Stand over in 2nd week of July, 2021.
In addition to regular mode of service, the appellant is
permitted to serve the respondent Nos.1 to 5 by hamdast.
JUDGE
vijay
