Dhondiba Pandharinath Khutwad v. Ferishete S. Mazada @ F.F.Chindhya & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Aug 2011
- Bench
- S C DHARMADHIKARI
Outcome
Dismissed
Resultantly, the petition is dismissed, but, without any order
Provisions considered
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ss. 14, 29, 84
- Constitution of India art. 227
Judgment
Mr.Prathamesh Bhargude for the petitioner. Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for respondent No.1. Mrs. Lalita Panchakshari for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 5th August 2011. P.C.: . The petitioner is aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by which a remand has been directed back to the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune Division, Pune. 2 The petitioner is the original opponent/respondent in Tenancy Application No.12 of 1996 which was on the file of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune Division, Pune. That was an application made by the 2 wp9451-09.sxw respondents before me invoking section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That application was rejected on 11th April 2011. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with that order, the respondents before me approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal has held that the Sub Divisional Officer was not justified in dismissing the application.
He should try it again. In other words, he was directed to make a fresh enquiry by permitting both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence. 3 It is contended by Mr.Bhargude appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal could not have ordered remand in this case. The Sub Divisional Officer has clearly held that the respondents are not entitled to invoke section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That is a summary proceeding seeking to evict the petitioner from the agricultural land. In such a proceeding it has to be clearly demonstrated that the petitioner is trespasser or has no right to occupy the land. On the own showing of the respondents, it was their case that they inducted the petitioner in the land in question. 4 Thus, it is the case of permissive possession. Once it is a case of 3 wp9451-09.sxw permissive possession, then, the provision in question was not applicable.
The remedy of the respondents was to go ahead and terminate the tenancy rights of the petitioner and seek his eviction in terms of sections 14 and 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That having not been done, the remand was not required and is, therefore, illegal and improper. 5 It is not possible to agree with Mr.Bhargude. At this stage, it is unnecessary to enter into the factual or any larger controversy. The case of the respondents before the Tribunal as also the Sub Divisional Officer was that they are absolute owners of the agricultural land Survey No.36/2A from village Manjri, Taluka Haveli, District Pune admeasuring about 2.9 hectres. They were getting the land cultivated from the petitioner and were paying charges in token of his labour services, because he was having his own bullocks and agricultural implements. The petitioner-opponent managed the revenue authorities and got his name recorded in the possession column to the extent of
Operative part
1.75 hectres. He is having no title, interest in the property and since his name was entered in the said column, he started disclaiming the title of the respondents-original applicants. The respondents challenged the 4 wp9451-09.sxw said Mutation Entries and in the same they succeeded. Thereafter, the petitioner-opponent preferred the RTS Appeal No.37 of 1990, which was also dismissed on 20th May 1994. Both the authorities held that the petitioner-original opponent is not only in illegal possession and cultivation, but, he has taken forcible possession of the farm-house. In such circumstances, they invoked the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was of the view that the Sub Divisional Officer was required to conduct an inquiry by taking cognizance and due note of all these aspects by permitting the parties to produce the relevant material. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in para 8 has held that despite the orders of the revenue authority and other material being brought to his notice, the Sub Divisional Officer has not adverted to the same. Even independent of the revenue proceedings, according to the Tribunal the original applicants- respondents before me had produced enough material which should have been considered after giving opportunity to both sides. The Sub Divisional Officer’s order was cryptic and did not assign proper reasons. 6 In my view, the approach of the Tribunal does not require any 5 wp9451-09.sxw interference inasmuch as by remand, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner. There is no apprehension that he will be ousted straightway. The inquiry will now commence before the Sub Divisional Officer and he would be obliged to go into rival contentions and consider the material that is placed before him by both sides. Since the application was not being decided on the touchstone of section 84 of the Act that the remand was necessitated. Such a course does not warrant any interference in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as the impugned order is not vitiated by any error apparent or perversity. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed, but, without any order as to costs. All contentions on merits are kept open and no opinion is expressed thereon by this Court.
(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the petition is dismissed, but, without any order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — ss. 14, 29, 84; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Aug 2011. The bench was S C DHARMADHIKARI.
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.