[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Dipak Annasaheb Patil And Another vs Deputy Collector, (General), ... on 9 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5512
WP-6982-2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6982 OF 2014
1. Dipak S/o. Annasaheb Patil,
Age : 54 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. Watwada, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Jayashri W/o. Dipak Patil,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. Watwada, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The Deputy Collector (General),
Osmanabad.
2. Navasaji S/o. Mariba Alte,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. Watwada, Tq. Kallam,
Dist. Osmanabad.
3. Rekha W/o. Navasaji Alte,
Age : Major, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. Watwada, Tq. Kallamb,
Dist. Osmanabad. ... Respondents
.....
Mr. P. B. Gapat, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, AGP for Respondent No.1 - State.
Mr. S. A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 05 FEBRUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 FEBRUARY 2026
ORDER :
1. In this writ petition, there is challenge to the judgment
and order dated 11.04.2014 passed by learned Member,
WP-6982-2014
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.25/A/2011/
O, which was an appeal under section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
2. Present respondent nos.2 and 3 along with others
approached Deputy Collector (Land Reforms), Osmanabad seeking
permission to sell land gut no. 233 over which their father was
declared to be tenant. In above proceedings, present petitioners
arraigned as defendants. By order dated 29.03.2011, learned Deputy
Collector rejected the proceedings and further directed Tahsildar
Kalamb to carry out the necessary changes after conducting an
inquiry and to dispatch a report.
3. Against above order, present respondent nos.2 and 3
moved the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, vide case No.
25/A/2011/O, which was pleased to partly allow the appeal by
judgment and order dated 11.04.2014, which is now subject matter
of instant writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that,
petitioners had purchased land gut no.233 situated at Watwada, Tq.
Kalamb, Dist. Osmanabad from respondents Navsaji and Rekha, who
had projected that said land was self acquired property and believing
them, sale deed was executed. It is further pointed out that,
WP-6982-2014
subsequent to sale deed, it was realized that, the said land was
tenancy land and therefore, at their behest present respondents in
the capacity of heirs of Mariba applied for permission to sell tenancy
land i.e. to the office of respondent no.1. However, said permission
came to be rejected by order dated 29.03.2011.
5. It is further pointed out that, against the said order,
present respondent nos.2 and 3 approached the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. However, according to petitioners, when there was
delay in approaching said authority, the tribunal condoned the said
delay in absence of parties and also decided the proceedings on the
same day, which, according to learned counsel for petitioners, is not
permissible in the eyes of law. It is further submitted that, said order
of tribunal against the principles of law and justice, needs to be set
aside.
6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3 would
support the impugned order and prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Perused the record. There does not seem to be dispute
that subject matter land was given to one Goroba Chandu Alte in the
capacity of original tenant. After demise of Goroba, his heir Navsaji
i.e. present respondent no.2 seems to have come on record as per
section 40 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
WP-6982-2014
1950, recognizes the said land to be heritable and as such, legal heirs
are entitled to continue under the same terms and conditions.
However, there are restriction on the sale and alienation of the said
land provided under the act itself. For alienating, selling and
mortgaging, prior permission of the Collector or specially authorized
Officer i.e. Tahsildar, is necessary. However, here, it appears that,
land transaction was carried out between petitioners herein and
respondent no.2 by virtue of sale deed and subsequently attempt
seems to have been made to seek permission of revenue authorities.
Meaning thereby, prior to transaction, there was no necessary
permission to enter into transaction with present petitioners.
However, no such permission was obtained and post execution of sale
deed, an application was tried to be submitted to seek permission.
Therefore, the transaction itself was bad for want of prior permission
and it had accordingly come under doubt. Learned Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in his impugned judgment, has taken
note of all such events that took place before the Deputy Collector
whose order was assailed before the learned tribunal.
8. However, learned Deputy Collector overreached by
directing Tahsildar to take possession of the said land and to proceed
with distribution of the same as per the act, and therefore, said part
of the order being beyond jurisdiction, was rightly interfered to that
extent.
WP-6982-2014
9. As regards to submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners before this court that in absence of parties, delay
application is condoned, this court has perused the said order dated
11.04.2014, which is also part of record. Considering the reasons
stated in the application and there to be delay of only 28 days in filing
application, delay application was decided. Dealing and deciding the
appeal on the same day is, therefore, not an irregularity or illegality,
more particularly, when the order is on complete appreciation of
cases advanced by each of the sides, going through the impugned
order and deciding the appeal by assigning the sound reasons. For
said reasons, contentions raised by petitioners, being devoid of
merits, cannot be considered.
No case being made out to interfere in the impugned
judgment and order, writ petition is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
