Smt.Philomena Lancelot D’Souza & Ors. v. Shri George Alfred Jema & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 21 Jun 2010
- Bench
- D G KARNIK
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The decision of the sub-divisional Officer holding that appellant was not the tenant is a finding of fact which, in the absence of any perversity, cannot be impugned in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice…
Judgment
Smt. Philomena Lancelot D’Souza & ors. ... Petitioners versus Shri George Alfred Jema & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr.D.S.Sawant i/b A.J. Almeida for the petitioners Mr.S.G.Karandikar for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 21st June 2010 P.C.
Heard.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 13th January 2010 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revision application of the petitioner and thereby confirming the appellate decision of the sub-divisional Officer.
Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal arose out of an order dated 21st July 199 passed by Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal dismissing the petitioner’s request for declaring him to be a tenant purchaser u/s.32(G) of the Bombay Tenancy and 2 Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “BT & AL Act”) The appeal against that order was dismissed by the sub-divisional Officer on 3rd April 2002 holding that appellant was not a tenant. That Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the said decision.
The decision of the sub-divisional Officer holding that appellant was not the tenant is a finding of fact which, in the absence of any perversity, cannot be impugned in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice to the earlier order dated 30th June 1960 passed by the Agricultural Lands in the enquiry which was first initiated u/s.32(G) of the BT & AL Act. In that decision, the sub-divisional Officer held that petitioner was not a tenant in respect of the suit land. The decision was not appealed against and has become final. As such, application for enquiry u/s. 32(G) itself was not maintainable. In any event, the finding that the petitioner was not a tenant rendered in the second enquiry cannot be said to be in any way perverse. Writ Petition is rejected summarily.
(D.G. KARNIK,J.)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.