Bombay High Court
Chitale Agricultural Products Ltd vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 14 August, 2024
Author: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
Bench: Sharmila U. Deshmukh
2024:BHC-AS:32620
wp6984-19f
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6984 OF 2019
CHITALE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS LIMITED )
A company incorporated under the provisions of the )
Companies Act, 1913 and deemed to be incorporated )
under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and )
thereafter the Companies Act, 2013, having its )
registered office at Patuck Press Compound, Shravan )
Yeshwant Chowk, Next to Kalachowky Police Station, )
Cotton Green, Mumbai - 400 033. ) ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, )
Through Minister Of Revenue And Forest, )
Government of Maharashtra,Mantralaya, )
Mumbai - 400 021. )
2. NANDKUMAR VASANT DESHPANDE )
3. JAYANT VASANT DESHPANDE )
4. PREMATA RAMCHANDRADESHPANDE )
5. USHA GAJANAND SAIGAONKAR )
All adults Indian inhabitants, joined in their )
capacity as heirs and legal representatives of )
Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande (since deceased), )
having their address at Natepute, Taluka: )
Malshiras, District: Solapur. )
6. SINDHU BALKRUSHNA )
7. RAMESH ALIAS NARENDRA BALKRUSHNA )
DESHPANDE )
8. SURESH ALIAS SURENDRA BALKRUSHNA )
DESHPANDE
9. UMESH BALKRUSHNA DESHPANDE )
sa_mandawgad 1 of 28
wp6984-19f
10. GANESH BALKRUSHNA DESHP ANDE )
All adults Indian inhabitants, having their address )
at Natepute, Taluka: Malshiras, District: Solapur. )
11. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SOLAPUR )
Having his office at Collectorate Compound, )
SiddheshwarPeth, Solapur 413 003 )
12. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PUNE )
DIVISION, PUNE )
Having his office at Pune Camp, Pune 411001 )
13. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER, PANDHARPUR )
Having his office at Malshiras Division, )
Taluka: Akluj, Solapur )
14. MAHARASHTRA STATE FARMING CORPORATION )
LIMITED, A Government of Maharashtra )
Undertaking having their registerd office at 270, )
Bhamburda, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune 411016 )
15. THE TAHSILDAR, VILLAGE: MALSHIRAS, )
having his office at Malshiras District Solapur )...Respondents.
----------
Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w. Mr. Prathamesh Kamat, Mr. Suraj Iyer and Mr. Mani
Thevar i/by Ganesh & Co. for the Petitioner.
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, for Respondent ___
Ms. S.D. Chipade, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Drupad Patil a/w. Mr. Namit Kumar Pansare, for Respondent Nos.2 to 4.
Mr. Karandikar i/by Mr. Satish Raut, for Respondent Nos.6,7,9 and 10.
----------
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Reserved on : July 12, 2024
Pronounced on : August 14, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final
hearing with consent of the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2 of 28
wp6984-19f
THE CHALLENGE:
2. Exception is taken to the order dated 17 th January, 2019 passed
by the Hon'ble Minister under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) dismissing the Revision Application
thereby confirming the order of the District Collector dated 2 nd July,
1985, order of Tahsildar dated 21st June, 2005 and the order of the
Additional Commissioner dated 19th March, 2013. By the said order,
the Hon'ble Minister directed the Sub Divisional Officer to consider
the proposal submitted by the Respondent No.2-herein for re-grant of
the property under Section 28-1AA of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short, "Ceiling Act").
THE ISSUES:
3. While testing the validity of the impugned orders, the issues
which arise for determination are :
(a) Maintainability of the composite Revision Application
under Section 257 of MLRC challenging the order of District
Collector dated 2nd July, 1985 setting aside the order of re-
grant of property by Prant Officer in favour of Petitioner,
the order of Tahsildar dated 21 st June, 2005 certifying the
mutation entry in the name of Late Vasant Ramchandra
Deshpande in respect of Gat No 242 and the order of
Additional Commissioner dated 19th March, 2013 passed in
Revision against the order of District Collector dated 2 nd
July, 1985.
3 of 28
wp6984-19f
(b) Whether the discretion exercised by the Hon'ble Minister
refusing to condone the delay caused in challenging the
orders dated 2nd July, 1985, 21st June, 2005 and 19th March,
2013 is arbitrary.
(c) Whether the impugned order dated 17th January, 2019
passed by the Hon'ble Minister stands vitiated as there is
adjudication of the issue of maintainability, merits as well
as delay.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
4. The facts of the case as pleaded in the petition is that the
Respondent Nos.2 to 10 were Watandars and in exercise of the rights
and powers vested in them under Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Hereditary Offices Act, 1874 executed lease for period of 30 years in
favour of the Petitioner in respect of the various agricultural lands
situated at Purandavade, Mandve, Yeliv of Taluka Malshiras, District
Solapur for agricultural purposes and name of Petitioner was entered
as lessee in revenue records.
5. After the coming into force of the Maharashtra Pargana and
Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 (for short, "Abolition Act") on
30th April, 1951, for implementation of Section 3 of the Abolition Act,
a circular was issued by the Mamlatdar on 31 st December, 1952 for
deleting the names of Watandars from the revenue records and for
entering the name of the then State of Bombay as owner of a watan
lands. Accordingly, the name of the Watandars were deleted from the
revenue entries.
4 of 28
wp6984-19f
6. By orders dated 2nd December, 1958 and 9th December, 1958,
upon expiry of the prescribed period of 5 years under Section 4 of the
Abolition Act, the Prant Officer recorded that the Watandars have
failed to pay the amount under Section 4 of the Abolition Act and that
Petitioner had paid the requisite amount for grant of occupancy rights
and directed the Petitioner's lease land be granted to the Petitioner
on new tenure as Class-I occupant. Mutation Entry No.2517 of village
Purandavade, Mutation Entry No.2525 of village Purandavade and
Mutation Entry No.4537 of village Mandve records the orders passed
by the Prant Officer and name of Petitioner was reflected as holder
of the said lands in 7/12 extracts.
7. In the year 1961, the State of Maharashtra enacted the
Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 and
pursuant to an inquiry under Section 14 of the Ceiling Act, declaration
came to be published by the Special Deputy Collector on 16 th April,
1964 in the Maharashtra Government Gazette, by which the lands of
Petitioner in excess of the ceiling limit were acquired by the State
Government and granted in favour of the Respondent No.14 i.e.
Maharashtra State Farming Corporation Limited.
8. By order dated 12th September, 1967, the Bombay High Court
passed an order of winding up of the petitioner-company under
Sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act, 1956 and for
appointment of an Official Liquidator. Pursuant thereto, the Official
Liquidator took charge of the affairs and the assets of the company.
5 of 28
wp6984-19f
9. Vide order dated 2nd July, 1985 the Respondent No.11- District
Collector, on applications filed by late Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande,
set aside the orders passed by the Prant Officer dated 2 nd December,
1958 and 9th December, 1958 granting occupancy rights to the
Petitioner. On 3rd November, 1998, the late Vasant Ramchandra
Deshpande filed an Application before the Respondent No.15-
Tahsildar for entering his name in the revenue records in relation to
Gat No.242 of Malshiras and on 21 st June, 2005, the Tahsildar passed
the order entering the name of Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande in
7/12 extract in respect of Gat No 242.
10. Against the order dated 2nd July, 1985 re-granting the lands to
Late Shri Vasant Ramchandra Deshpande, revision application came to
be filed before the Additional Commissioner by the Respondent No 5
to 9 against the Respondent Nos 1 to 4. Vide order dated 19 th March,
2013, consent terms executed between the parties came to be
accepted and the names of the Respondent Nos.5 to 9 were entered
as owners of ¼th share in the other rights column of the 7/12 extract
in respect of certain properties which were originally leased to the
Petitioner.
11. By communication dated 14th October, 2013 addressed by one
Dattatraya Waman Chitale, shareholder and Director of the Petitioner
Company to the Sub Divisional Officer intimated him that the
Petitioner was in liquidation and that the lands are vested with the
Official Liquidator, High Court, Bombay.
6 of 28
wp6984-19f
12. Vide order dated 28th January, 2016 passed in Company Petition
No.40 of 1967, the Bombay High Court permitted the revival of the
Petitioner-Company.
13. The Respondent Nos.2 to 10 applied to the Tahsildar for
allotment of land under the provisions of the Ceiling Act pursuant to
the State Government's policy to return lands to persons from whom
the same are acquired in which the Petitioner received notice dated
8th April, 2017.
14. The revisional jurisdiction of the State of Maharashtra through
the Minister for Revenue and Forest was invoked by the Petitioner
challenging the order dated 2nd July, 1985 passed by the District
Collector, order of the Tahsildar dated 21 st June, 2005 and order of
the Additional Commissioner dated 19th March, 2013.
15. On 19th April, 2017, alongwith the said Revision Application the
Petitioner filed an Application seeking condonation of delay and an
Application seeking stay of the impugned order. The Respondent
Nos.6,7,9 and 10 filed an application challenging the maintainability of
the Revision Application. Vide impugned order dated 17 th January,
2019, the Respondent No.1 dismissed the Revision Application.
16. The findings of the Hon'ble Minister can be broadly summarized
as under :
ON DELAY:
(i) The Revision Application challenges the order of the District
7 of 28
wp6984-19f
Collector dated 2nd June, 1985 after a period of 32 years, order
of the Tahsildar dated 21st June, 2005 after 12 years, and the
order of the Additional Commissioner dated 19 th March, 2013,
after 4 years.
(ii) On 14th October, 2013, the Petitioner had addressed
communication to the Deputy Collector stating that the subject
properties have been transferred to the Petitioner-Company
and an Official Liquidator has been appointed in respect of the
Petitioner company,and, if any decision is taken in respect of
the subject properties, the same would amount to contempt of
the orders of the High Court.
(iii) On 19th November, 2014, the Petitioner had addressed a
communication to the Sub Divisional Officer calling upon the
Sub Divisional Officer not to pass any order in respect of the
subject properties.
(iv) On 1st March, 2014, the Petitioner had submitted a complaint to
the Deputy Collector contending that the subject properties
were leased to the Petitioner-Company, which were re-granted
to the Petitioner-Company and without offering any
opportunity of being heard under the Ceiling Act, the property
has been re-granted in favour of late Vasant Deshpande.
(v) In view of the communications, it is not possible to accept the
explanation tendered that the Petitioner was not aware of the
said orders being passed. Even after the Petitioner Company
8 of 28
wp6984-19f
became aware, there is delay of about 4 years in challenging
the said orders.
ON MAINTAINABILITY :
(vi) As per the provisions of Section 4 of the Abolition Act, the issue
as to whether any person is the holder of the land falls within
the jurisdiction of the Collector and against the order of the
Collector the Revision Application has to be filed before the
State under the provisions of the Abolition Act. However, the
Petitioner has challenged the order under Section 257 of the
MLRC before the State Government which is not maintainable.
Even if it is accepted that the order can be challenged before
the State under MLRC, after the land was acquired by the State
Government under the Ceiling Act, the land has been
transferred to the Respondent No.14.
(vii) An application was made by the Respondent No.2 under section
28-1AA of the Ceiling Act for getting the land and pursuant to
the orders passed in Petition filed by the Respondent No.2
before the High Court, direction was given to the Collector by
the High Court to decide the Application, which has not yet
been adjudicated. In light of the orders passed by the High
Court directing adjudication of the Application, challenge to the
order of 2nd July, 1985 passed by the Collector setting aside the
order of the Prant Officer cannot be accepted.
(viii) A composite application has been filed challenging three orders
9 of 28
wp6984-19f
of the Collector, the Tahsildar and the Divisional Commissioner
under Section 257 before the State Government. It was
necessary for the Petitioner to exhaust the remedies before the
Appellate Authorities before approaching the State
Government and thus, against the order of the Tahsildar, the
challenge before the State Government is not maintainable.
(ix) Against the order of 21st June, 2005, allowing the Application
was made by late Vasant Deshpande for entering his name in
revenue record, the Respondent No.14 had filed an Appeal
before the Assistant Collector, which was decided by order
dated 23rd May 2006 by the Assistant Collector. As against the
order, Respondent No.14 filed an Application before Deputy
Collector which was dismissed by the order dated 16 th April,
2010 and thus, the order of 16 th April, 2010, not having been
challenged further has attained finality.
SUBMISSIONS:
17. Mr. Jain, learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken this Court
through the various orders under challenge before the Hon'ble
Minister. He would submit that an Application for condonation of
delay was filed by the Petitioner explaining the delay that the
Company was under liquidation since 12 th September, 1967 and that
the proceedings before the Prant Officer were without notice to the
Petitioner or the Official Liquidator. He would submit that Company
has been revived on 20th January, 2016 and thereafter the procedure
10 of 28
wp6984-19f
for revival was completed. According to him, as the Company was in
liquidation, the Company was oblivious of any proceedings and after
revival in January, 2017 prompt steps were adopted. He would
criticize the impugned order for the reason that the Respondent No.1
has attributed the knowledge of Shareholder and Director to that of
the Company .
18. He would briefly touch upon the merits of the order of the
Collector and would submit that the reply filed by the Respondents
contends that the Deshpande family had paid occupancy price for
re-grant and there was error on part of Revenue Authority which
postulates that there was an order of re-grant in favour of the
Petitioner-Company. He submits that no order of re-grant in favour of
Deshpande family could be passed by the Collector in respect of the
assets of the company which were in the hands of the official
liquidator without obtaining leave of the Company Court under
Section 446 of the Company Act. He submits that the order of the
Collector dated 2nd July, 1985 was exercised under Section 257 of
MLRC which is not permissible and that too after period of 28 years
without any application for condonation of delay and without any
order condoning the delay.
19. Pointing out to the observations of the Hon'ble Minister, he
submits that the impugned order decides the issue of the
maintainability of the Application, the condonation of delay
application as well as the merits of the matter which is not permissible
11 of 28
wp6984-19f
in law. In support he relies upon the following decisions:
(i) Madhao s/o. Somaji Sarode vs. Jotiba Dhyan Upasak
Shikshan Sanstha, Dudhale and Ors.
[2004(3)Mh.L.J.1078];
(ii) Macchindranath Adiwasi Masemari Sahakari Sanstha,
Tiwasa and Ors. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2014(1)
Mh.L.J.398];
(iii) Decision of this Court in Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. vs.
Mr.R.C.Shah (deceased) through LRS and Ors. in Writ
Petition (L) No.2886 of 2011, decided on 23 rd January,
2012.
(iv) Balkrishna Sadashiv Thakur and Ors.Prabhakar Sadashiv
Thakur and Ors., (2021) (5) Mh.L.J.669.
20. Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos.6,7,9 and 10 would submit that what deserves consideration is
the legal effect of the order dated 16 th April, 1964 passed under the
Ceiling Act, by which the land was acquired by the State Government
and thereafter allotted to Respondent No.14. He submits that upon
the said order being passed, all rights of the Petitioner came to an end
in 1964. He submits that from the year 1964 to 1967, no steps were
taken by the Petitioner-Company and even after its revival in 2017,
there is no challenge to the order of 16 th April, 1964. He points out to
the Government Gazette which is at page No.240 and would submit
that the lands have been acquired by the State Government. He
questions the locus of the Petitioner in the absence of any challenge
to the acquisition proceedings. He submits that before the Hon'ble
Minister, an objection to maintainability was raised and also specific
submission was canvassed on locus. He would further submit that as
12 of 28
wp6984-19f
per the State Government policy, the surplus land is to be allotted to
the land-owner and under the provisions of Section 28-1AA of the
Ceiling Act, the right would be only of the owner or of Respondent
No.14 and the Petitioner has no right. He would further point out
page No.34 of the declaration by the Special Deputy Collector which
notified that the lands specified are declared to be surplus land and
are forfeited to the State Government. He submits that in the year
1964 itself, the rights of the Petitioner come to an end and therefore
the order of the Collector of 1985, even if re-grants the land to the
Petitioner would have no effect. He submits that the 1964 notification
was not challenged and the possession has been taken. He submits
that under Section 4 of the Abolition Act, the land can be re-granted
only to the Watandars and there is no statutory provision which would
permit the Petitioner to get the land. He submits that the Hon'ble
Minister has considered the said provision and has decided the
maintainability of the Application against the order passed by the
Collector dated 2nd July 1985. He submits that the order of Collector
is required to be challenged before the State Government under the
provisions of Abolition Act and not under Section 257 of the MLRC.
21. Pointing out to the orders passed in Company Petition No.40 of
1967, he submits that order records the fact of acquisition by the
State Government and allotment to Respondent No 14. He submits
that the orders also note that the assets of the Company are fixed
deposits and amount standing to the credit of the bank.
13 of 28
wp6984-19f
22. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2 to 4
submits that as per Section 4 of the Abolition Act, land resumed is to
be re-granted to the holder of the Watan. He submits that therefore
the petitioner who was a lessee of the land could not have been re-
granted the land under the provisions of Abolition Act. He would
further submit that the explanation given for condoning the delay as
far as the order of re-grant dated 2 nd July, 1985 is concerned, is that
the company was under liquidation from the year 1967 to the year
2016 and was able to start functioning only after January, 2017. He
submits that communication was addressed by the Director and
Shareholder of the company, Mr. Dattatraya Chitale on 14 th October,
2013, 19th November, 2014 and 1st March, 2014 to the Revenue
Authorities raising objections in respect of re-grant of the
land. He submits that thus the Petitioner had acquired knowledge of
the order passed in the year 2013 itself, and therefore the
Application filed in the year 2017 does not set out any acceptable
explanation.
23. He submits that the Hon'ble Minister has gone into the issue of
maintainability of the Petition in view of the order passed by this
Court dated 21st September, 2017 in petition filed by the
Respondents, where this Court has held that the Respondents herein
shall be entitled to raise all issues before the Revenue Authority,
including one of jurisdiction and/or the maintainability as well as the
delay. He points out that separate application was filed on 17 th July,
2017 raising preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the
14 of 28
wp6984-19f
Revision. He would further submit that while rejecting the delay one
of the factors to be taken into consideration can be prima facie merit
of the matters.
24. He has taken this Court in detail through the orders passed by
the Hon'ble Minister and would point out that the Collector's order
was challenged directly before the State Government and therefore
the same was held to be defective. He further submits that the Ceiling
Act, there was a window of 90 days, which was open for re-allotment
of the land and which was not availed by the petitioner. He submits
that by order dated 15th October, 2013 passed in Writ Petition
No.9652 of 2013, this Court had directed the issuance of lead form
which process has started from 2013 and is pending. He would further
point out that the Hon'ble Minister has held that against the order of
the Collector, Appeal is permitted and that Revision is not
maintainable. He would further submit that Hon'ble Minister has
noted that against the order of the Tahsildar dated 21 st June, 2005
entering the name of late Vasant Deshpande in respect of Gat No.242,
an Appeal has been preferred by the Respondent No.14, which came
to be dismissed as against which, the challenge before the Assistant
Collector failed and the Deputy Collector has confirmed the order
which has attained finality. In support he relies upon the following
decisions:
(i) Decision of this Court in Nandkumar V. Deshpande and
Ors. Chitale Agricultural Products Limited and Ors. in
Writ Petition No.10165 of 2017, decided on 21st
September, 2017,
15 of 28
wp6984-19f
(ii) Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkatta vs. Kalipada
Bhakat and Ors. [(2014) 10 SCC 573]
(iii) Siddheshwar s/o. Panchappa Hawa vs. State of
Maharashtra and Ors. [2019 SCC OnLine Bom 904]
(iv) Decision of this Court in Shri Dr.Ravindra s/o.
Ambardasji Saokar vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
in Writ Petition No.4617 of 2018 decided on 3 rd July,
2023,
(v) Everest Fincap Pvt.Ltd vs. Krishna Realtors and Ors.
[2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7981];
(vi) MICO Employees' House Building Co-operative Society
Limited vs. Bangalore Development Authority and Ors.
[ILR 2014 KAR 2153];
(vii) V.K. Seshasayee and anr. vs. Official Liquidator (2005
SCC OnLine Mad 826);
25. Ms.Chipade, learned AGP would point out that pursuant to the
order passed by this Court leave was obtained by the Respondents
under the Ceiling Act and thereafter proposal was submitted to the
Collector. She would further point out the operative part of the order
directing the Sub Divisional Officer to take a decision on the
Application filed under Section 28-1AA of the Ceiling Act by the
Respondents for re-allotment of the land.
26. In rejoinder, Mr.Jain would submit that the undisputed facts are
that there was grant in favour of the Petitioner, which grant was set
aside in the year 1985 by the Collector without notice. He submits
that the said order is passed under Section 257 of the MLRC, which
16 of 28
wp6984-19f
was not applicable. He submits that the provisions of the Abolition Act
provides for the Authority to whom the challenge could have been
made and thus the order of the Collector itself was without
jurisdiction. He submits that two letters dated 14 th October, 2013 and
19th November, 2014 on which the Hon'ble Minister has relied to non-
suit the petitioner was not on record and was not produced by any of
the parties. He would further submit that as far as Section 28 of the
Ceiling Act is concerned, whether the petitioner or the watandars is to
be allotted the land is a question pending before the Collector as is
evident from the operative part of the order. He submits that the
Respondent No 14 was not party to the three orders under challenge
before the Hon'ble Minister. He submits that while exercising the
powers under Section 257 of MLRC, the Hon'ble Minister could not
have gone into the merits of the matter.
27. In sur-rejoinder, Mr.Patil, would contend that the letters of 2013
and 2014 were produced on record by the Respondent No.14 and the
petitioner's contention is not that the letters were not produced but
that the copies were not given.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS:
28. The revisional jurisdiction of the State Government under
Section 257 of MLRC was invoked by filing a composite application
challenging the order of the Collector dated 2 nd July, 1985 setting
aside the order of the Prant Officer which had in the year 1958
re-granted the subject land to the Petitioner and regranting the land
17 of 28
wp6984-19f
to Late Vasant Deshpande. The second order is passed by the
Tahsildar on an application by Late Vasant Deshpande for certifying
the mutation entry in his favour in respect of Gat No 242
consequent to the order of Collector dated 2 nd July, 1985. The third
order dated 19th March, 2013 is passed by the Additional
Commissioner on the application filed by other branch of Deshpande
family challenging the order dated 2nd July, 1985 and on basis of
consent pursis entered into the between Respondents inter se
entered the name of Respondents as 1/4th owners in respect of the Gat
No.217.
29. Vide order dated 21st September, 2017 passed in Writ Petition
No 10165 of 2017, this Court had directed the Revisional Authority to
decide the Revision application within period of three months with a
clarification that the Respondents herein will be entitled to raise all
points including of jurisdiction and/or maintainability and delay. The
order of this Court was accepted by all the parties.
30. The facts and circumstances narrated above would justify a
brief advert to the relevant statutory provisions of the Abolition Act
and the Ceiling Act. Section 4 of Abolition Act provides for watan land
resumed to be re-granted to holder of the watan to which it
appertained on payment or occupancy price. Section 3 of the Ceiling
Act prohibits holding of land in excess of ceiling area and the area in
excess of ceiling to be surplus land. Section 14 of Ceiling Act
empowers the Collector to hold an inquiry into surplus land and
18 of 28
wp6984-19f
Section 21 governs the issuance of declaration regarding surplus land
and the consequences thereof. Under Section 28-1AA, the State
Government has the power to grant land to State Corporations.
Section 33 provides for Appeals against an order or award of Collector
to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
ON MAINTAINABILITY:
31. In the present case, powers under Section 28-1AA of Ceiling Act
were exercised and after acquisition of surplus land in the year 1964
the surplus land was granted to Respondent No.14. The Respondent
No.2 has preferred an application seeking re-allotment of the land
pursuant to State Government policy which is pending adjudication.
The order of this Court dated 28 th January, 2016 in Company Petition
No.40 of 1967 records that the lands owned by the Company were
acquired and some lands have been surrendered to the Respondent
No.14 herein. The position emerging from the facts is that on the day
of filing the Revision Application, the subject lands were acquired by
the State Government and the Respondent No.2 had applied for re-
allotment of the subject land.
32. The obstacle in the way of challenge to the orders of the
Collector re-granting the land and the certification of the mutation
entries in favour of the Deshpande family is the locus of the Petitioner
once the lands have been acquired under the Ceiling Act by the State
Government and allotted to the Respondent No.14. The Petitioner in
the year 2017 did not retain any interest in the subject land in the
19 of 28
wp6984-19f
absence of any challenge to the order of acquisition of the year 1964.
Under Section 4 of Abolition Act, a watan land resumed is to be
regranted to the holder of the watan to which it appertained and
under Section 21(4) of Ceiling Act, the Collector is to take possession
of the land delimited as surplus and in case of land which the landlord
is entitled to resume, restore possession of the land to the landlord
named in the declaration. I therefore find that the legal effect of the
acquisition in the year 1964 has wiped out the interest of the
Petitioner in the subject land and therefore the Petitioner had no
locus to invoke the revisional jurisdiction qua the order of Collector re-
granting the land to Late Vasant Deshpande. All interest of the
Petitioner came to an end atleast from the date of notification of
acquisition dated 7th May, 1964. The Petitioner company was
functioning till the year 1967 and there was no challenge to the
acquisition at any point of time by the Petitioner.
33. Another aspect which militates against the maintainability of
the Revision Application is the composite application filed challenging
the orders. The Abolition Act does not expressly state the Authority
to whom an appeal or revision would lie from the order of the
Authority ordering the re-grant. In Annaji Vasudev Dangarkar & Ors
vs Ramchandra Deshpande [AIR 1967 Mysore 111], the Court while
considering whether the order of regrant can be challenged in the
Civil Court noted thus:
"25. The very question, whether an appeal lies from an order of
a revenue officer re-granting or refusing re-grant under Section 4
20 of 28
wp6984-19f
(1) of the Watan Abolition Act, came up for consideration before
a Bench of this Court in Sonubai v. Yamunabai, 1962-40 Mys LJ
953. This is what their Lordships stated:-
".... Section 203 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code does
provide that in the absence of any express provision either
in the Bombay Land Revenue Code or in any other law to
the contrary, an appeal shall lie from any decision or order
passed by a Revenue officer under the Bombay Land
Revenue Code or under any other law for the time being
in force, to that officers' immediate superior. Section 3(1)
of the Bombay Land Revenue Code defines a revenue
officer as an officer appointed and employed in or about
the business of the land revenue. It is thus clear that the
Prant Officer, who made a re-grant to the petitioner, was
a revenue officer as defined by Section 3(1) of the
Bombay Land Revenue Code and if he made an order
under Section 4 of the Para-gana and Kulkarni Watans
(Abolition) Act, it is clear from Section 203 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code that since that ordar was one made
by a revenue officer although under the Bombay
Paragana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, an appeal
lay from that order to the officer who was immediately
superior to the Prant Officer, there being no provision to
the contrary anywhere. The meaning of Section 203 of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code is that if an order is made
by an officer whether the order is one made under the
Bombay Land Revenue Code or whether under any other
law for the time being in force, an appeal from that order
lies to the immediate superior officer who made the
order...........
That being the position, it is obvious, that the appeal
presented to the Collector by respondent 1 from the order
made by the Prant Officer, re-granting the land to the
petitioner was perfectly maintainable. It is equally clear
that from the order made by the Collector in appeal, a
further appeal to his immediate superior officer was also
competent as provided by Section 203 of the Bombay
Land Revenue Code..."
21 of 28
wp6984-19f
34. In the present case, the Collector has passed the order dated 2 nd
July, 1985 setting aside the order of the Prant Officer and re-granted
the subject land to Late Vasant Deshpande in exercise of powers
under Section 4(1) of the Abolition Act. Considering the decision of
Annaji Vasudev Dangarkar & Ors vs Ramchandra Deshpande (supra)
the order was rightly passed in appeal against the order of Prant
Collector and further challenge was required to be adopted under the
Abolition Act and not under the MLRC even if the authorities are
revenue authorities.
35. Apart from the admitted position that the order of 21 st June,
2005 was challenged by the Respondent No 14 which had failed,
against the order of the Tahsildar dated 21 st June, 2005 certifying the
mutation entry in favour of Late Vasant Deshpande revision is
preferred directly by the Petitioner before the State Government
by-passing the hierarchy of the authorities under the MLRC which was
not maintainable. The Hon'ble Minister has therefore rightly held that
the challenge cannot lie straight to the State Government.
ON DELAY:
36. Coming to the aspect of delay, the delay is of 36 years, 12 years
and 4 years in challenging order of Collector, Tahsildar and Divisional
Commissioner respectively. The explanation tendered in the
Application seeking condonation is that the Petitioner Company was
revived after a span of about 49 years and for the period from 1967 to
2016 the Company being in liquidation, was unaware of any
22 of 28
wp6984-19f
proceedings.
37. The explanation of the Company being unaware of the
impugned orders was not accepted by the Hon'ble Minister in view of
the letters dated 14th October, 2013, 19th November, 2014 and 1st
March, 2014. The contention is that these letters on the basis of which
the petitioner was non-suited were not on record of the revision
proceedings is countered by showing that the Respondent No.14 had
placed these letters on record.
38. Before this Court, the submission of Mr.Jain is that the
knowledge of the Share holder cannot be attributed to the Company
which was under liquidation. The fact remains that the letters of the
year 2013 and 2014 were written by one of the Directors of the
Petitioner-Company at the time when the Official Liquidator was in
charge of the affairs of the Company and was empowered to do all
acts in the beneficial interest of the Company. The Company
Application (L) No 803 of 2015 was filed by the same Director Dattraya
Waman Chitale in which the permission to revive was granted by order
dated 28th January, 2016. Nothing stopped the Director from filing an
appropriate application in the Company Petition to bring it to the
notice of the Official Liquidator that the property of the Company
was re-granted to Late Vasant Deshpande to the detriment of the
Company.
39. The communication dated 1st March, 2014, which is relied upon
by the Hon'ble Minister to decline exercise of jurisdiction, refers to the
23 of 28
wp6984-19f
re-grant order and paragraph 4 of the said communication specifically
states that the complaint is on behalf of the Petitioner Company. The
admitted position is that at least in the year 2013/2014 the erstwhile
director/shareholder of the Company had knowledge about the same.
40. It is no doubt true that where the official liquidator has been
appointed the directors are not in control of any assets and liabilities
or the affairs of the company. However, the official liquidator is
empowered to take control of all the assets of the company and to
administer the same. Despite acquiring knowledge in the year
2013/2014, no steps were taken on behalf of the company through
the Official Liquidator and therefore the Hon'ble Minister has rightly
declined to accept the explanation about the Company not being
aware of the said proceedings.
41. One of the challenges mounted by Mr. Jain was that after
arriving at a finding that there is no sufficient explanation for
condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Minister has thereafter decided the
matter on merits, which is impermissible in law. He draws support
from decisions of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd vs R.C. Shah (supra) and
Madhao vs J.D.U.S Sanstha (supra) which holds that the sufficiency of
cause has been considered independently of the merits of the matter.
The decisions does not assist the case of the Petitioner as the
Hon'ble Minister has restricted the examination to the issues of
maintainability and delay as per the directions of this Court dated 21 st
September, 2017 and while deciding the issue of maintainability has
24 of 28
wp6984-19f
factored the issue of locus of the Petitioner. Upon my reading of the
impugned order, I do not find that there has been an adjudication on
merits. As far as the decision of M.A.M.S.S Vs State of Maharashtra
(supra) is concerned, the facts are clearly distinguishable as in that
case the appeal was dismissed as it was not accompanied by an
application for condonation of delay.
JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXERCISE OF DISCRETION:
42. In Sheo Raj Singh (D) Tr Lrs vs Union of India reported in
[(2023) 10 SCC 531], the Apex Court held thus:
"30. Considering the aforementioned decisions, there cannot
be any quarrel that this Court has stepped in to ensure that
substantive rights of private parties and the State are not
defeated at the threshold simply due to technical
considerations of delay. However, these decisions
notwithstanding, we reiterate that condonation of delay being
a discretionary power available to courts, exercise of
discretion must necessarily depend upon the sufficiency of the
cause shown and the degree of acceptability of the
explanation, the length of delay being immaterial.
31. Sometimes, due to want of sufficient cause being shown
or an acceptable explanation being proffered, delay of the
shortest range may not be condoned whereas, in certain other
cases, delay of long periods can be condoned if the
explanation is satisfactory and acceptable. Of course, the
courts must distinguish between an 'explanation' and an
'excuse'. An 'explanation' is designed to give someone all of
the facts and lay out the cause for something. It helps clarify
the circumstances of a particular event and allows the person
to point out that something that has happened is not his fault,
if it is really not his fault. Care must however be taken to
distinguish an 'explanation' from an 'excuse'. Although people
tend to see 'explanation' and 'excuse' as the same thing and
25 of 28
wp6984-19f
struggle to find out the difference between the two, there is a
distinction which, though fine, is real.
32. An 'excuse' is often offered by a person to deny
responsibility and consequences when under attack. It is sort
of a defensive action. Calling something as just an 'excuse'
would imply that the explanation proffered is believed not to
be true. Thus said, there is no formula that caters to all
situations and, therefore, each case for condonation of delay
based on existence or absence of sufficient cause has to be
decided on its own facts. At this stage, we cannot but lament
that it is only excuses, and not explanations, that are more
often accepted for condonation of long delays to safeguard
public interest from those hidden forces whose sole agenda is
to ensure that a meritorious claim does not reach the higher
courts for adjudication.
33. Be that as it may, it is important to bear in mind that we
are not hearing an application for condonation of delay but
sitting in appeal over a discretionary order of the High Court
granting the prayer for condonation of delay. In the case of
the former, whether to condone or not would be the only
question whereas in the latter, whether there has been proper
exercise of discretion in favour of grant of the prayer for
condonation would be the question. Law is fairly well-settled
that "a court of appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the
discretion exercised by the courts below". If any authority is
required, we can profitably refer to the decision in Manjunath
Anandappa v. Tammanasa, which in turn relied on the (2003)
10 SCC 390 decision in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat
Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha where it has been held that:
"an appellate power interferes not when the order
appealed is not right but only when it is clearly wrong".
43. Applying the above enunciation of law to the facts of the
present case, the Hon'ble Minister has refused to condone the delay
by declining to accept the explanation of lack of knowledge in light of
the communications of the year 2013-2014. In my view, the distinction
26 of 28
wp6984-19f
sought to be drawn between knowledge of the Company and
knowledge of the shareholder/Director is a plea designed to tide over
the inaction for a period of almost four years. It cannot be said that
the appointment of Liquidator prohibits the interested party from
bringing to the notice of the Official Liquidator or filing any
application in the Company Petition that the assets of the Company
are being re-allotted to the detriment of the Company. As noted by
the Apex Court in the above decision, an appellate power interferes
not when the order appeal is not right but only when it is clearly
wrong. In my view, the discretion exercised by the Hon'ble Minister
was not arbitrary and deserves no interference.
44. The propositions canvassed by Mr. Jain in respect of the order
passed by the Collector dated 2nd July, 1985 as to whether the
Collector could have entertained the application of Late Vasant
Deshpande after delay of 28 years and without notice to the Official
Liquidator or Petitioner would entail examination of the order dated
2nd July, 1985 on merits. The proceedings are perched at the threshold
of consideration of delay and maintainability and therefore review of
the decision of 2nd July, 1985 on merits is impermissible.
CONCLUSION:
45. Considering the provisions of Section 4(1) of Abolition Act and
Section 21(4) of Ceiling Act, the re-grant and re-allotment of the
acquired land could be in favour of the holder of watan or the
landlord. In absence of any challenge to the notification of 7 th May,
27 of 28
wp6984-19f
1964, by which the land was acquired by the State Government and
thereafter transferred to the respondent No.14, the rights of the
Petitioner came to an end in the year 1964 itself and the Petitioner
did not have any locus to challenge the orders passed qua the subject
lands.
46. The composite application challenging the orders passed
under the Abolition Act and the MLRC was not maintainable. Further
there could not be a direct challenge before the State Government
against the order of Tahsildar of the year 2005 without adhering to
the hierarchy of authorities provided under the MLRC.
47. On the aspect of condonation of delay, there is unexplained
delay of about four years atleast from 2013-2014 and refusal to
condone the delay by the Hon'ble Minister in light of the
communications by the erstwhile Director cannot be said to be
arbitrary.
48. In view of the discussion above, I find no reason to interfere
with the discretion exercised by the Hon'ble Minister rejecting the
application for condonation of delay. Petition stands dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
28 of 28
Date: 14/08/2024 18:17:13
