[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deorao Laxman Kandalwad And Otthers vs Nyalsingh Mohadu Pandhare And Others on 24 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:9079
1 9750-23-WP.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9750 OF 2023
1. Deorao s/o Laxman Kandalwad,
Age-58 years, Occu. Nil.,
2. Kausalyabai w/o Gangadhar Parashwad,
Age 52 yrs, Occu. Household.,
3. Shantabai w/o Vijaykumar Kalyanpad,
Age 51 yrs, Occu. Household
4. Neelabai w/o Nagorao Parashwad,
Age- 48 yrs, Occu. Household,
All R/o Sawargaon Tanda
Tq. Kinwat Dist. Nanded ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Nyalsingh s/o Mahadu Pandhare,
Age- 63 years, Occu.- Agri.,
R/o Sawargaon Tanda
Tq. Kinwat Dist. Nanded
2. The Additional Collector,
District Collector Office, Nanded
Dist. Nanded
3. The Tahsildar, Kinwat
Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
...
Mr. U. B. Bilolikar, Advocate h/f Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar, Advocate for
Petitioners
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent/State
2 9750-23-WP.odt
Mr. Sanjeeva Deshpande, Sr. Advocate a/w Swapnil Joshi &
Swapnil Patankar, i/b Mr. Ganesh Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent
No.1
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
RESERVED ON : 02nd FEBRUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th FEBRUARY, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioners are assailing the order
dated 26.07.2023, passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Aurangabad (for short 'the learned Tribunal), in Revision
Petition No.40-B-2022-Nanded, wherein the Revision filed by
Respondent No.1 challenging the order dated 20.06.2022, passed
by the Additional Collector, Nanded, in File No.2022/LR/TNC/
Appeal/CR-6, came to be allowed.
3. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. U. B. Bilolikar holding for
Mr. A. G. Vasmatkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. A. D.
Wange, learned AGP for Respondent/State and Mr. Sanjeeva
Deshapnde, learned Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Ganesh Jadhav, learned
Counsel for Respondent No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that by the
order dated 24.10.1954 passed by the Collector the land
admeasuring 110 Acres 12 Gunthas was marked as Shet- Sindhi
3 9750-23-WP.odt
Inam Land, amongst which, survey No.48 was assigned to father of
Petitioner (Laxman Narayan). Laxman Narayan filed an appeal for
cancellation of declaration in favour of Bhalji Mansha. Mahadu
Lalu (father of Respondent No.1) claimed declaration as a lessee of
Laxman Narayan before Deputy Collector Land Reforms which was
cancelled by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2845 of
1975. Thereafter, Mahadu Lalu filed R.C.S. No.05 of 1980, which
was dismissed and the same was confirmed in the First Appeal and
Second Appeal also. This Court in Second Appeal recorded a
finding that Mahadu Lalu was never declared statutory owner.
After his death, legal heirs were brought on record, Respondent
No.1 was among them. Respondent No.1 never brought any
pleading in respect of tenancy rights.
5. After lapse of 50 years from the date of decision in Second
Appeal, Respondent No.1 introduced theory of tenancy rights and
filed proceedings before the Revenue Authorities. After series of
litigation, the Additional Collector, Nanded considered the whole
backdrop of the proceedings and allowed the appeal in favour of
Petitioners. The learned Tribunal erroneously reversed the well
reasoned finding of Additional Collector, Nanded without assigning
proper reasons thereto.
6. He further submits that the revenue entries do not show
that Jalba Mansha was either cultivator or possessor. Mahadu Lalu
Pandhare was never a protected tenant and therefore prays for
allowing the Writ Petition.
4 9750-23-WP.odt
7. In support of his contention, he relies upon the
following judgments:-
(i). M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in
AIR 2011 SC 1113;
(ii). Ananda Ragho Puri & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.,
reported in 2025 (4) All M.R. 374;
(iii). Sambhaji & Ors. Vs. Gangabai & Ors., reported in 2009 (1)
All M.R. 921;
(iv). Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup & Ors., reported in
(2008) 8 SCC 671;
(v). Malhar S/o. Ganpat Bokephod & Ors. Vs. Shivaji S/o.
Vishwanath Pawal in Writ Petition No.7094 of 2013 dated
17.10.2013;
(vi). Baburao S/o. Umaji Kawale & Anr. Vs. N.R.B. Salary Earner
Cooperative Credit Society Ltd., Jalna & Ors. in Writ Petition
No.5133 of 2009 dated 20.11.2009.
8. Mr. Sanjeev Deshpande, Senior Counsel instructed by Mr.
Ganesh Jadhav, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that
Respondent No.1 had duly obtained Legal Heirship Certificate from
the Competent Court showing that, he is legal heir of protected
tenant-Jalba Mansha Pandhare. A declaration under Section 38E of
the Act of 1950 was issued in favour of Jalba Mansha Pandhare and
Mutation Entry No.142 was entered into revenue record. Tenancy
rights were declared in favour of Jalba Mansha, thereby in favour
of Mahadu Lalu and finally in favour of present Respondent No.1
by heirship. The judgment in Second Appeal No.117 of 1983 is in
respect of the civil suit for declaration and possession, whereas the
present proceeding arose out of the tenancy law. Therefore, the
5 9750-23-WP.odt
Judgment in Second Appeal No.117/1983 does not cause hurdle in
entertaining the present Petition arising out of tenancy
proceedings. After series of litigation, the learned the learned
Tribunal confirmed the order passed by Tahsildar, Kinwat and set
aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded. While
deciding the revision, the learned Tribunal held that Respondent
No.1 is legal heir of Mahadu Lalu Pandhare and Lalu Pandhare is
real brother of Jalba Pandhare, who was a protected tenant.
9. He further stated that this Court in Review Application
has held that the Succession Certificate duly issued by the
Competent Court has not been considered by this Court and had it
been considered the fate of the petition could have changed.
Therefore, he submits that the order of the learned Tribunal is just
legal and proper and the present petition is devoid of merits and
liable to be dismissed.
10. I have heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties
and, with their assistance, perused the record. It is useful to refer
the earlier proceeding for just and proper decision of the case
which are as follows:
10.1 Father of the Petitioners - Laxman Narayan Kandalwad
was owner and possessor of land Survey No.48 (New Gut No.98),
situated at Sawargaon Tanda, Tq. Kinwat, Dist. Nanded. One
Gunderao Dattaram was Inamdar of Survey No. 05, 48, 53, 87, 89.
The Government had marked 110 Acre and 12 Gunthas for Shet-
Sindhi Inam. The settlement took place in the year 1934 Fasli and
6 9750-23-WP.odt
in 1950, Laxman was appointed as Shet-Sindhi. Thereafter, Laxman
became owner and possessor of the land by paying occupancy
price. Laxman has been in possession from 1950 and his name was
recorded in revenue record in the year 1960-62. The name of
original owner Gunderao Dattaram was shown as owner and the
name of Laxman as cultivator in Khasara Patrak and Pahani Patrak
from the year 1954 to 1960. Deceased Jalba Mansha Pandhare was
declared a protected tenant as per Section 38-E of the Maharashtra
Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1959 (for short 'the Act of
1959'). Laxman filed appeal for cancellation of declaration issued
in favour of Bhalji Mansha under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad
Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short 'the Act of
1950'), which was allowed, thereby handing over possession to
Laxman. An appeal filed against said order was dismissed by the
Deputy Collector of Land Reforms, Nanded which was also
confirmed by the learned Tribunal in a Revision. Thereafter,
Mahadu Lalu (Father of Respondent no.1) by obtaining Laxman's
consent deceitfully claimed declaration that he is lease holder on
behalf of Laxman, which was allowed and confirmed by Divisional
Commissioner. Being aggrieved, Laxman filed Special Civil
Application No. 2845 of 1975 before this Court, which came to be
allowed.
10.2 Thereafter, Mahadu resorted to the civil remedy by filing
Regular Civil Suit no. 05 of 1980. There occurred a compromise
between him and Laxman, whereby Laxman agreed to alienate the
land to the extent of half share from southern side in favour of
7 9750-23-WP.odt
Mahadu in the year 1969 for consideration of Rs.2,500/- which
Mahadu paid to Laxman. Laxman later on agreed to alienate
remaining half portion of northern side in favour of Mahadu for
consideration of Rs.2000/-. Mahadu paid the said consideration
amount to Laxman. In RCS No. 05 of 1980, no pleading regarding
tenancy rights was raised by Mahadu. The said suit was dismissed
and its findings were confirmed in the First Appeal and also in
Second Appeal.
10.3 Respondent No. 1, after a lapse of about 50 years in filed
an Appeal before Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat challenging the
Mutation Entry No. 111 sanctioned on 27.06.1961 by raising a
theory of tenancy rights. The Sub- Divisional Officer dismissed the
Appeal on the ground of delay. Being aggrieved thereby,
Respondent no. 1 filed appeal before Additional Collector, Nanded
who dismissed the same. Aggrieved thereby Respondent No. 1 filed
Revision before Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad
who remanded the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh
consideration regarding the issue of tenancy. The Sub-Divisional
Officer dismissed the Appeal in remand.
10.4 Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed application for
declaration of tenancy before the Tahsildar, Kinwat which was
dismissed. Respondent No. 1 filed Appeal before Sub-Divisional
Officer, Kinwat who remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.
Tahsildar conducted fresh enquiry and observed that Jalba Mansha
Pandhare was a protected tenant. Being aggrieved thereby
8 9750-23-WP.odt
petitioners filed Appeal before Additional Collector, Nanded who
allowed the same. Being aggrieved thereby, Respondent no. 1 filed
Revision before the learned Tribunal which allowed the same. The
said order of the learned Tribunal is assailed in the present
petition. The said order of the learned Tribunal was assailed by
filing Writ Petition No.9750 of 2023, which was allowed and the
Special Leave Petition (Civil) filed against the order in Writ Petition
No.9750 of 2023 was dismissed. Respondent No. 1 filed Review
Application, which was allowed and the matter was placed before
this Court."
11. The record reveals that the Special Civil Application
No.2845/1975 was filed by Laxman against Mahadu S/o Lalu and
the Divisional Commissioner for cancellation of declaration as a
lease holder issued in favour of Mahadu. It was the contention of
Laxman that the property was originally an Inferior Village Watan
(Inam) Land, which was allotted in occupancy rights in favour of
Laxman, by re-grant made under Section 5 of the Act of 1959. This
Court recorded a finding that on behalf of the Respondent No. 1, it
was accepted that there was no declaration with regard to
conferment of occupancy rights as asked for, but a simple
declaration, as he was not an authorized holder.
12. This Court further observed that the term 'unauthorized
holder' has been defined as a person in possession of Watan land
without any right or under a lease, mortgage, sale, gift or any other
9 9750-23-WP.odt
kind of alienation thereof which is null and void under the existing
Watan Law.
It is obvious that the term 'unauthorized holder' has been
defined in order to enable the Collector to exercise power under
Section 9 of the Act of 1959, if necessary, in a given case. It is for
this limited purpose that definition has been drafted. Section 8 of
the Act of 1959 operates by its own force and under that provision,
where any land has been lawfully leased and such lease is
subsisting on the appointed day, the provisions of tenancy law
applies to the said lease. The rights and liabilities of the holders of
the land and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of
the Act of 1950, are governed by the provisions of the said Tenancy
law.
Now, if the power to decide whether a person is an
unauthorized holder is to be exercised only when it is so required
under the provisions of the Act of 1959. A proper occasion for such
a decision must arise in proceeding taken under the Act of 1959. It
is obvious that what the Respondent No. 1 wanted was a
declaration that he was tenant by virtue of provisions of Section 8
of the Act of 1959, and this would have to be obtained from a
forum provided by the relevant Tenancy Law, which was
Hyderabad Tenancy Law, in the instant case. No declaration as
asked by the Respondent No. 1 is contemplated by any of the
provisions of the Act of 1959.
13. Considering the above, I must refer to Section 8 of the Act
10 9750-23-WP.odt
of 1959, which reads as under:
"8. Application of tenancy law:
If any watan land has been lawfully leased and such lease is
subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law
shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the holder
of such land, and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions
of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said law.
Explanation: For the purposes of this section the expression "land"
shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the tenancy law."
14. In Second Appeal No.117/1983 filed by Mahadu s/o Lalu
Pandhare through the legal heirs against Laxman, Shrichand,
Prema and Ramchand, this Court recorded a finding that the
Plaintiff's case was that he was in actual possession over the suit
lands as a cultivator on the crucial date (1 st August, 1960). He was
entitled for declaration of statutory ownership in respect of the said
lands, which were Shet-Sindhi Inam and had vested in the State.
However, erroneously the suit lands were declared in the name of
predecessor of Respondent No.1 instead of such declaration in his
favour. The Respondent No. 1 in the present Petition is legal heir of
the Petitioners in Second Appeal No.117/1983. This Court
admitted the Second Appeal and framed the substantial questions
of law, which reads as under :-
"(i) Whether, in the facts and first while circumstances of the
present case, the Appellate Court committed patent error
reaching conclusion that jurisdiction of Civil Court was
ousted since the suit lands are Inam Watans and, therefore,
question of statutory ownership can be determined only by
the competent authority under provisions of the Bombay
Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 ?
(ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
11 9750-23-WP.odt
the first Appellate Court committed patent error while
reaching conclusion that findings of the High Court Civil
Application in Special No. 2845/1975 would operate as res
judicata and, therefore, the deceased plaintiff was not
entitled to claim declaration of ownership and possession ?
(iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court committed
substantial error while appreciating the evidence placed on
record and, in particular, by relying upon contents of the
order of Tahsildar (Exh-75) which findings of facts ?"
15. This Court, while considering the Second Appeal,
recorded the following findings in Paragraph Nos.10 and 11
thereof:-
" 10. It is in the wake of above background that the legal impact of
earlier litigation may be examined. The deceased plaintiff was never
declared as a tenant or occupant of the suit lands. The Deputy
Collector held in the earlier proceedings that the plaintiff was
occupant of the suit lands. The decision of the Deputy Collector was
confirmed by the Commissioner, Aurangabad in an appeal. The
judgment of the Commissioner was subject matter of challenge in
Special Civil Application No. 2845/1975. A copy the judgment
rendered by this Court (Exh-32) Special Civil Application No.
2845/1975 is placed on record. The deceased plaintiff and deceased
defendant No. 1 of in were parties to the said litigation. The
observations of this Court may be reproduced as follows:
".....It is obvious that what the respondent wanted was a declaration
that he was a tenant by virtue of provisions of section 8 and this
would have to be obtained from forum provided by the relevant
Tenancy Law, which was the Hyderabad Tenancy Law, in the instant
case. No declaration as asked for by the respondent is contemplated
by any of the provisions of the Act. The application by the respondent
before the Collector on which the two impugned orders have been
passed was, in our view, wholly misconceived and was liable to be
rejected."
The deceased plaintiff was respondent before this Court in the
context of Special Civil Application It is explicit that he claimed No.
2845/1975. tenancy rights under provisions of the Hyderabad
occupant Tenancy Law. He did not claim to be a person entitled for
declaration of statutory ownership as under provisions of the
12 9750-23-WP.odt
Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958. It is for such
reason that this Court quashed the orders of the Deputy Collector
and the Commissioner, declaring the respondent No. (deceased
plaintiff of the suit herein) as an occupant of the suit lands. The
above observations would make it manifest that all along stance of
the deceased plaintiff/appellant was that the suit lands could not
result of be declared to the defendant No. 1 as a abolition of the
inferior watans inams because he was a 1 tenant in possession
thereof and the tenancy rights were governed by the Hyderabad
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
11. As stated earlier, the appellant never declared statutory owner
as a tenant of the suit lands provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy
under and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. If any question as whether a
person is tenant under the provisions of the said Act was to be raised,
then it ought to have been referred to the competent Tenancy
Tribunal in view of section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The plaintiff never sought reference of
such a question to the Tenancy Tribunal, nor attempted Tribunal. The
ever get it decided through the Tenancy revenue entries purport to
show that the suit lands were in possession of Bhalji Mansha in.
1965-66. The declaration of ownership rights in name is of deceased
defendant No. 1 Laxman duly to corroborated by entries in the
concerned Inam Lands Patrak (Exh-68). The judgment of this Special
Civil Application No.2845/1975 would amount constructive res
judicata in as much as the contesting parties were the deceased
plaintiff and the deceased defendant No. 1. The points decided by
this Court were identical to the dispute raised in the Civil Suit."
16. After going through the record, I find that an order was
passed by the Deputy Collector, Nanded, on 29.04.1960. In the said
order, the Deputy Collector noted that Jalba Mansha had been
evicted nine years prior thereto and the landholder had occupied
the said land without obtaining permission from the Tahsildar,
which was in contravention of Section 32(2) of the Act of 1950,
Accordingly, it was directed that the land owner be evicted and that
possession be restored to Jalba Mansha.
However, though the order was passed by the Deputy
13 9750-23-WP.odt
Collector, Nanded, there was no any record to show that the
original landowner was actually evicted or that Jalba Mansha was
put in possession of the said property. The record further reveals
that the proceedings were initiated by the Laxman against Bhalji
Mansha and Gunderao Dattaram.
17. The learned Tahsildar, Kinwat vide its order dated
11.04.1966 observed in the said order that-
"Respondent No.1 Bhalji s/o Mansha has no case and the final
declaration U/Section 38-E of the Act of 1950 in respect of land
Survey No.48 of Sawargaon, Pargana Islapur, Tq. Kinwat is fit to be
cancelled as land Survey No. 48 is a Shet-Sindhi Inami Land. The
Respondent Bhalji S/o Mansha holds land in excess of one family
holding. The said order was challenged by Bhalji s/o Mansha by
filing an Appeal before the Deputy Collector, Nanded and the
learned Deputy Collector dismissed the Appeal by observing that the
lower court has decided that land in question was Shet-Sindhi
Inami Land. No proof was produced by the Appellant that the land
was not Inam. The Appellant also failed to establish that he holds
only one family holding. The lower court considering the evidence
on the record decided that the Appellant held more than one family
holding."
18. It further appears from the record that the root of present
proceedings has been initiated by the Petitioner by filing an
Application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, whereby Mutation
Entry No.111 which was record on 27.06.1961 has been
challenged. It was contended by the Respondent No. 1 before the
Sub-Divisional Officer that the Respondent's grandfather, namely,
Lalu Mansha and his elder brother were protected tenants and that
he was unmarried. Thereafter, the Respondent's father, who was a
cousin brother, was cultivating the said land. The name of the
Petitioner's father - Mahadu was recorded in the cultivation
14 9750-23-WP.odt
column for the years 1961-1962 and 1969-1970. The original
owner of the said land was Gunderao Dattaram and the said land
did not belong to the Government. Mutation Entry No.111 was
sanctioned by the Tahsildar on 27.06.1961 and the said entry was
effected behind back of the Petitioners. Hence, the same was
challenged by filing an Application for condonation of delay under
Section 251 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for
short 'the Code').
19. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Kinwat rejected the said
Appeal vide its order dated 12.08.2013. Being aggrieved thereby,
Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal under Section 247 of the Code
before the Additional Collector, Nanded. The said Appeal was
dismissed by the Additional Collector, confirming the order dated
12.08.2013 passed by the Tahsildar. Being aggrieved thereby,
Respondent No.1 filed a Revision under Section 257 under the
Code before the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad.
The Additional Divisional Commissioner partly allowed the
Revision and set aside the orders passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer as well as the Additional Collector, recording a finding that
Jalba Mansha was a protected tenant in respect of land Survey
No.48 and had died issue-less. It was further held that the
revisional Petitioner, i.e. Respondent No.1 had some interest in the
matter. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional
Officer for a fresh inquiry. Pursuant to the order of remand, the
Sub-Divisional Officer reconsidered the matter but rejected the
same, holding that an issue of tenancy had arisen and that he had
15 9750-23-WP.odt
no authority to decide such issue. Thereafter, Respondent No.1
filed an Application before the Tahsildar, Kinwat, which came to be
rejected by order dated 22.05.2020. Being aggrieved thereby,
Respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal under Section 247 of the
Code before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer
allowed the said Appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar,
Kinwat for reconsideration, directing him to decide the proceedings
in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1950.
20. Pursuant to the remand, the Tahsildar by order dated
20.01.2020 partly allowed the Application filed by Respondent
No.1, observing that as per the record of land Survey No.48 (New
Survey No.98), the name of elder brother of grandfather of
Respondent No.1 (Deceased Jalba Mansha Pandhare) reflected
therein. However, it was also observed that the Tahsildar was not
empowered to cancel the mutation entry.
21. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 20.01.2020, the
Petitioners preferred an Appeal before the Additional Collector. The
Additional Collector, Nanded after considering the entire record
allowed the Appeal and passed a detailed and well-reasoned order
dated 20.06.2022 and set aside the order dated 20.01.2020 passed
by Tahsildar.
22. Being aggrieved thereby, Respondent No.1 preferred a
Revision before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed
the Revision, quashed and set aside the order dated 20.06.2022
16 9750-23-WP.odt
passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded and the order dated
20.01.2020 passed by Tahsildar was confirmed.
23. Upon going through the orders passed by the Tahsildar
and the learned Tribunal, it is revealed that so far as the Petitioners'
rights are concerned, under Section 7 of the Act of 1959, the
predecessor-in-title had already been declared as an occupant. The
said order had attained finality and findings to that effect were
recorded by this Court in Special Civil Application No.2845/1975
and Second Appeal No.117/1983 and those proceedings have
already been finalized.
In view of the decision in the Second Appeal, the
proceedings instituted before the Tahsildar were not maintainable,
as the rights of the present Petitioners had already been decided in
the civil proceedings.
24. The Respondent No. 1 herein challenged Mutation Entry
No.111 recorded on 27.06.1961 for the first time by filing an
Appeal in the year 2013 and the present proceeding arises
therefrom. Even earlier, the Sub-Divisional Officer and the
Additional Collector had rejected the said challenge. However, the
Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad remanded the matter to the
Sub-Divisional Officer by observing that an issue of tenancy had
arisen.
25. In fact, Respondent No.1 had raised an issue regarding
Mutation Entry No.111, which had been sanctioned in the year
17 9750-23-WP.odt
1961 and accordingly instituted proceedings before the Revenue
Authorities. After remand, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the
same by its order dated 08.02.2019.
26. Thereafter, the Tahsildar by order dated 20.01.2020
allowed the Application by observing that the name of Jalba
Mansha Pandhare was reflected in land Survey No.48 and recorded
a finding that the land had already been declared in favour of
Respondent No.1 under the Act of 1959 and that in respect of some
portion thereof, he was declared as a tenant without considering
the earlier proceedings, which had attained finality and were
instituted at the instance of Jalba.
27. The said order was set aside by the Additional Collector,
Nanded after considering the earlier record and by passing a well-
reasoned order. However, the learned Tribunal set aside the said
order of Additional Collector, Nanded without assigning any
specific reasons.
28. In Paragraph No.23, the learned Tribunal observed as
follows:
"On going through the entire proceedings, pleadings, documentary
evidence and submissions advanced by both the sides, it appears that
the order passed by the Additional Collector, Nanded dated
20.06.2022 in File No.2022/LR/TNC/Appeal/CR-06 is not proper,
legal and maintainable in the eyes of law......."
However, in the entire order, no specific findings have
been recorded as to why the order of Additional Collector, Nanded
18 9750-23-WP.odt
was liable to be set aside.
29. Considering the above, I find that the learned Tahsildar
and the learned Tribunal have committed an apparent error in
entertaining and allowing the Application and Revision
respectively, filed by Respondent No.1. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following order :
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petition is allowed.
[II] The order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the learned
Tribunal in Revision Petition No.40-B-2022 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
[III] The order dated 20.06.2022 passed by Additional
Collector, Nanded in File No.2022/LR/TNC/
Appeal/CR-06 is confirmed.
[IV] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Sameer
