Mr.Nazareth Pascol Baptista v. Maric Theresa De Menezes & Ors.

Mr.Nazareth Pascol Baptista S/o Pascol Joseph Baptista Since deceased through his LRs- Mrs. Flory Nazareth Baptista and others. V/s. Sera Marie Henrique Since Deceased through her LRs- Mrs. Enid Anna Hayden and others. ... Petitioners. ... Respondents. J.Shekhar i/b. J.Shekhar & Co. for the petitioners. J.Reis, Senior Advocate i/b. Abhijeet Joshi for respdt. No.1 & 1-A (WP 4292/12) and for respdt. Nos.1-B and 1-D (WPNo.4923/12). S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Shri Rajesh Kachare i/b. Ameet Palkar for respondent No.5. 2/4 4922.12-wp-- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 22nd November 2012. P.C. : By the impugned order, the Additional Commissioner has refused to condone delay and entertain revision under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that section 257 by itself does not prescribe any limitation but reasonably it can be of three years. The impugned order passed by the Collector is dated 13th April 2006 and it was assailed on 9th February 2011. Hence, according to him, at the most there is delay of about 1½ years after expiry of said period of three years. The contention is that since the civil litigation was going on and in that civil suit, the petitioners- plaintiffs were likely to succeed, the petitioners were waiting for adjudication of that civil suit and also they had no amount to invest in filing the revision at that stage. Support is being taken from the judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashok Balajiratan v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur reported in 2004 (6) BCR 861: 2004 (3) MhLR 788. It is urged that the decree obtained by the petitioners has been stayed by this Court in first appeal only because of the revenue entries. Learned counsel has, therefore, briefly attempted to show that order passed by the Collector is erroneous and because of that erroneous order the decree obtained by him in civil suit has been stayed by this Court in first appeal. 3/4 4922.12-wp--

Learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents and learned A.G.P. are opposing this petition.

After hearing the respective counsel, I find that the entries in the mutation record and revenue record are only for fiscal purpose. The said entries are not determinative in civil adjudication. It is the judgment delivered by the civil Court after appreciation of the facts which is required to be implemented by the revenue authorities. In this case, the judgment delivered by the civil Court is in favour of the petitioners. However it has been stayed by the competent Court i.e. this Court in first appeal under section 96(1) of C.P.C. after hearing respective counsel for the parties. In this situation, it is apparent that merely by filing revision the effect of judgment of civil Court or stay granted by this Court cannot be diluted and the contention that stay has been granted by this Court only because of wrong revenue entries cannot be accepted.

If the order of the Collector dated 13th April 2006 was erroneous, the contention that the petitioners/plaintiffs were waiting for adjudication of civil suit cannot be accepted. Here, fortunately, the adjudication of civil suit has come in their favour. But had it been against the petitioners, it cannot be presumed that they would not have challenged the order of Collector dated 13th April 2006.

In this situation, I do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity in the order passed by the Additional Commissioner. 4/4 4922.12-wp--

As the orders of the civil Court are binding on the revenue authorities and the civil dispute between the parties is still pending, it is apparent that merely because of alleged wrong revenue entries no prejudice as such would be caused to the petitioners.