High Court
Legal Reasoning
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO.5484 OF 20151Shivshankar Lachamandas Rathod (Died)Since deceased through his legal representatives -1-a)Sanjay Shivshankar Rathod,Age 62 yrs., Occ. Business,1-b)Mahendra Shivshankar Rathod,Age 60 yrs., Occ. Business,1-c)Narendra Shivshankar Rathod,Age 62 yrs., Occ. Business,1-d)Aparna w/o Jayant Rathod,Age 56 yrs., Occ. Housewife,All are r/o 2993-94, Mathura Land,Ganj Bazar, Ahmednagar,Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 2Raghuveer Lachamandas Rathod,Age 75 yrs., Occ. Retired State Governmentservant, original R/o as above,At present R/o Building No.103, 3555,Nehru Nagar, Kurla (East), Mumbai – 400 024.3Ramesh Lachamandas Rathod (Died)Since deceased through his legal representatives -3-1)Pushpa w/o Ramesh Rathod,Age 70 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o C/o Dr. Satish P. Rathod,33/03, Gulmohar Colony,N-5, CIDCO, Near Jijamata School,Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. 2WP_5484_2015_Jd3-2)Dr. Jitendra Ramesh Rathod,Age 45 yrs., Occ. Medical Practitioner,R/o Mathura Land, 2993/94, Ganj Bazar,Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 3-3)Atul Ramesh Rathod,Age 40 yrs., Occ. R/o as above. 3-4)Swati w/o Satish Rathod,Age 38 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o C/o Dr. Satish P. Rathod,33/03, Gulmohar Colony,N-5, CIDCO, Near Jijamata School,Aurangabad, Tq. & Dist. Aurangabad. … Petitioners… Versus … 1The State of MaharashtraThrough the Principal Secretary,Department of Revenue, M.S.,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2The Hon’ble Minister of State,Department of Revenue, M.S.,Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 3The Divisional Commissioner,Nashik Region, Nashik. 4The Collector,Ahmednagar. 5The Sub Divisional Officer,Ahmednagar Division,Ahmednagar. 6The Talathi,Savedi, Ahmednagar,
Legal Reasoning
3WP_5484_2015_JdTq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 7Bashir Ahmad Va Nana (alias Sultan Ahmad)Tambatkar (Died)Since deceased through his legal representative -Khalil Ahmad Bashir Ahmad Tambatkar (Died)Since deceased through his legal representatives -7-A)Shaheda w/o Khalil Ahmad Tambatkar,Age 54 yrs., Occ. Household,R/o Diamond Kadba Kutti,Jadhav Mala, Ahmednagar,Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. 7-B)Akram Khalil Ahmad Tambatkar,Age 33 yrs., Occ. Business,r/o as above. 7-C)Basit Khalil Ahmad Tambatkar,Age 30 yrs., Occ. Business,R/o as above. 7-D)Ayan Khalil Ahmad Tambatkar,Age 18 yrs., Occ. Business,R/o as above. … Respondents...Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. D.R. Deshmukh, Advocate forpetitionersMr. K.B. Jadhavar, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate for respondent Nos.7-A to 7-DMr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for applicants in CA/2155/2023Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate for applicants in CA/15748/2022... 4WP_5484_2015_JdWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.2155 OF 2023 in WP/5484/2015WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.8653 OF 2022 in WP/5484/2015WITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO.15748 OF 2022 in WP/5484/2015WITHCONTEMPT PETITION NO.356 OF 2022 in CA/6644/2020 in WP/5484/2015...CORAM :S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.RESERVED ON :30th JULY, 2024PRONOUNCED ON :02nd AUGUST, 2024JUDGMENT : 1Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned Advocatesfor the parties finally, by consent. 2Petitioners impugn order dated 09.09.2014 passed by Hon’bleMinister of State, Department of Revenue in Appeal No.3314/Pra.Kra./Ja-6,thereby setting aside Judgment and order of Additional DivisionalCommissioner, Nashik dated 17.03.1988. 3Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel appearing forpetitioners submits that petitioners had challenged mutation entry by filingappeal before Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar in respect of suit landwhich is part and parcel of Sy.No.4/1, 4/A and 4/2 (now Gat Nos.4, 5 and 6 5WP_5484_2015_Jdrespectively) situated at Savedi, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar. The SubDivisional Officer, Ahmednagar allowed RTS Appeal No.05/1984 and setaside Mutation Entry No.7226 vide his order dated 04.08.1984. RespondentNo.7 challenged decision of Sub Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar beforeCollector, Ahmednagar in RTS Appeal No.11/1984. Said appeal came to bedismissed. Aggrieved by aforesaid decision, respondent No.7 had filedRevision Application No.63/1985 before Divisional Commissioner at Nashik.Said revision application came to be dismissed. Thereafter, there was civillitigation between parties. 4Mr. R.S. Deshmukh, learned Senior Counsel would submit thatHon’ble Minister entertained revision application against order dated17.03.1988 passed by Divisional Commissioner, after 26 years and 05months, without issuing notice of such proceeding to petitioners and allowedrevision application vide order dated 09.09.2014. He would point out thatrevision application was filed on 27.08.2014 and same has been allowedwithin a period of two weeks without issuing notice to petitioners. Mr. R.S.Deshmukh would further point out that there is no whisper as regards todelay of 26 years and 05 months in order of Hon’ble Minister. He would,therefore, urge to quash and set aside the impugned order and remit matterback to Hon’ble Minister for consideration on merits after hearing all 6WP_5484_2015_Jdconcerned. 5Mr. V.D. Salunke, learned Advocate appearing for respondentNos.7-A to 7-D as well as learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6support the impugned order. They would submit that Section 257 ofMaharashtra Land Revenue Code does not prescribe limitation forentertaining revision application by State Government. Therefore, delay of26 years and 05 months is not relevant, when State has exercised its powersof revision. 6Having considered submissions advanced, it is apparent thatHon’ble Minister entertained revision against order dated 17.03.1988 passedin Revision Application No.63/1985. The revision filed on 27.08.2014appears to have been decided with jet speed on 09.09.2014. It is apparentthat order passed by Hon’ble Minister is without issuing notices to contestingparty. The order records that respondents have not made oral or writtensubmissions. Perusal of proceeding nowhere depicts that respondents wereever served with notice of proceeding. The order is apparently ex parte.Pertinently, there is no whisper as regards to huge delay in filing revisionapplication. It is true that Section 257 of M.L.R. Code empowers StateGovernment to entertain revision application against orders of Revenue orSurvey Officer, however, such powers can be exercised in reasonable period. 7WP_5484_2015_JdNow, it is well settled that reasonable period shall be of three years evenwhen statutory scheme providing revisional powers do not prescribelimitation. Reference can be given to Judgment of this Court, passed relyingupon the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shri SantoshkumarShivgonda Patil and others vs. Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale and others[(2009) 9 SCC 352]. 7Consequently, impugned order is not sustainable for two reasons;firstly, it is in gross violation of principles of natural justice and secondly, itdoes not consider the issue of delay and laches. Consequently, the writpetition deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, following order. ORDER1Writ Petition is partly allowed. 2The impugned order dated 09.09.2014 passed by respondentNo.2 - Hon’ble Minister of State, Department of Revenue in Appeal (Revision)No.3314/Pra.Kra.216/Ja-6 is hereby quashed and set aside. 3The matter is remitted back to Hon’ble Minister of State fordecision afresh after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 4All points are kept open. 8WP_5484_2015_Jd5Parties to appear before Hon’ble Minister on 19.08.2024. 6Parties shall be at liberty to file written notes of argument as wellas advance oral submissions. 7Hon’ble Minister may thereafter proceed to decide RevisionApplication on its own merits, within a period of six months from the date ofappearance of parties and communicate decision to all concerned, within aperiod of 15 days thereafter. 8Rule is made absolute in above terms. 9Pending Civil Applications and Contempt Petition stand disposedof. ( S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR ) JUDGEagd