Bombay High Court
Shri. Pravinkumar S/O Govindram ... vs Smt. Rani Manoramadevi Raja Bakht ... on 20 September, 2023
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Vrushali V. Joshi
1 WP1038-14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 2685/2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1038/2014
(PRAVINKUMAR GOVINDRAM SARDA & OTHERS VERSUS RANI MANORAMADEVI RAJA BAKHT
BULAND SHAH & OTHERS)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri C.V. Kale, counsel for the petitioners.
Ms S.S. Jachak, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent-State.
Shri S.W. Sambre, counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri B.M. Lonare and Shri P.D. Sharma, counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5.
Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the respondent no.6.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2023.
By this civil application, the petitioners alongwith the respondent nos.2
to 5 pray that the compromise arrived at between them as referred to in
paragraph 3 of the civil application be recorded and the writ petition insofar
as the said parties are concerned be disposed of.
2. In Writ Petition No. 1038 of 2014, the judgment passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 11.02.2014 confirming the order dated
01.06.2013 passed by the Tahsildar, Kamptee is under challenge. The
Tahsildar by his order dated 01.06.2013 was pleased to record a finding that
the transfer of lands by Shri Ganpatsing Gaherwar and his legal heirs was
contrary to the provisions of Section 57 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1948. Such transfer was also in
breach of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The
possession of the said lands was directed to be restored in favour of the
respondent nos.1 to 6 herein. This order was challenged by the present
petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in the appeal preferred
under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled
Tribes Act, 1974 which dismissed the said appeal by its judgment dated
11.02.2014.
2 WP1038-14.odt
3. In paragraph 3 of the civil application the petitioners who were the
appellants before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the respondent
nos.2 to 5 who were the applicants alongwith the respondent nos.1 and 6
before the Tahsildar have jointly stated that they have arrived at a settlement
under which the respondent nos.2 to 5 admit that there was no transfer of
lands belonging to a tribal to a non-tribal between 01.04.1957 to 06.07.1974.
The order dated 19.09.1969 passed by Tahsildar, Nagpur does not result in
transfer of the subject land by a tribal to a non-tribal. The respondent nos.2
to 5 seek to admit that they have lost title on the ground that Shri
Ganpatsingh Gaherwar and his legal heirs were not in authorized possession
of the subject land for a period of more than twelve years as a result of which
the said respondents had lost their title in the said land. For this reason they
could not have moved the application for restoration of possession under the
Act of 1974. Consequentially the order dated 01.06.2013 passed by the
Tahsildar and the judgment dated 11.02.2014 delivered by the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal to the extent of the share of the respondent nos.2 to 5 be
set aside.
4. Heard Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners
and Shri B.N. Lonare, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5 as well as
Shri H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 who seeks to
oppose the civil application. We find that accepting the terms of compromise
would first require consideration of merits of the present proceedings. This is
for the reason that under the terms of compromise between the petitioners
and the respondent nos.2 to 5 an imprimatur of the Court is sought to be put
on various legal aspects especially those contained in paragraph 3(iii) to (vi),
(viii) and (ix) thereof. Unless a finding is recorded by this Court that the
transfer of the subject land by virtue of order dated 19.09.1969 passed by the
Tahsildar and as held by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its judgment
dated 11.02.2014 does not amount to a transfer of the subject land, the
compromise cannot be recorded. Though Clause (i) of paragraph 3 is not
3 WP1038-14.odt
sought to be pressed by the petitioners, in our view unless the basis for
directing restoration of the subject land in favour of the respondent nos.1 to
6 is not gone into on merits, it would not be a sound exercise of jurisdiction
to accept the compromise on the basis of the statements made therein by the
petitioners and the respondent nos.2 to 5.
5. For aforesaid reasons, the consideration of the prayers made in this
civil application is deferred till the writ petition is considered on merits. Civil
Application (W) No. 2685 of 2023 shall therefore be heard alongwith Writ
Petition Nos.1038 of 2014 and 2673 of 2015.
(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed by: Apte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/09/2023 12:32:41
