High Court · 2024
Legal Reasoning
(1) ca-5803-2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5803 OF 2024IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1133 OF 20241.Narayan s/o Ramrao Pate,Age 77 years, Occu. Agri.,2.Vimal w/o Narayan Pate,Age:- 75 years, Occ. Agri.,3.Suraj s/o Narayan Pate,Age:- 40 years, Occ. Agri.,All R/o Sakhara, Tq. & Dist. LaturVersus1.The Collector,Land Reforms Latur2.The Tahsildar Latur,Tq. & Dist. Latur3.Maruti Nagu Andhare (Died)Through L. Rs.A.Nanhu Maruti Andhare, Died through L. Rs.A-1.Chimabai Vishwanath Shinde, Age:- 75 years, Occ. Agri.,A-2.Laxman Vishwanath Shinde, Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,A-3.Sukhdev Manik Mote, Age:- 57 years, Occ. AgriA-4.Balaji Manik Mote, Age:- 54 years, Occ. Agri., Respondent No. A-1 to A-4, R/o Satdharwadi, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur (2) ca-5803-2024.odtA-5.Sojarbai Nehru Jadhav, Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Holkar Nagar, Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur Through Power of Attorney Laxman Vishwanath Shinde4.Sudam s/o Nivrutti Dandime,Age:- 66 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Ganjur, Tq. & Dist. Latur5.Madhav s/o Nivrutti Dandime.Age:- 63 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Sakhara At Present Pandharpur, C/o Shiriguru Bhagvan Maharaj, Shivnikar Math, Ghondge Galli, In front of Chinchwan Talmi, Pandhapur, Dist. Solapur6.Yadav s/o Nivrutti Dandime,Age:- 61 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Sakhara, Tq. & Dist. Latur, At Present Gunju, Tq. & Dist. Latur.7.Rajendra s/o Nivrutti Dandime,Age:- 58 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Ganjur, Tq. & Dist. Latur8.Vishnu Ramrao Pate,Age:- 70 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Harangul, Tq. & Dist. Latur9.Bhimji Medhji Patel,Age:- 55 years, Occ. Agri.,10.Kantilal Medhji Patel,Age:- 52 years, Occ. Agri.,Respondent No.9 and 10, Vinvekanand Nagar, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur11.Umashankar s/o Kashinath Swami,Age:- 51 years, Occ. Agri.,12.Somnath s/o Chandrashekhar Swami,
Legal Reasoning
(3) ca-5803-2024.odtAge:- 50 years, Occ. Agri.,Respondent No.11 and 12 R/o Gul Market, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur13.Dhiraj s/o Narayan Pate,Age:- 48 years, Occ. AgriR/o Sakhara, Tq. & Dist. Latur....Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar h/f Mr. P. P. More, Advocate forApplicants.Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mrs. Rekha Chaudhari,Advocate for Respondent Nos.3(A) to 3(A-5).Mrs. Priyanka P. Shinde h/f Mr. P. M. Shinde, Advocate forRespondent Nos.4 to 7.Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for Respondent Nos.11 and 12.Respondent Nos.8, 9, 10 and 13 are served (absent).…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1132 OF 2024WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5948 OF 2024 CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 29th JULY 2024.ORDER:- 1.Heard Mr. Katneshwarkar holding for Mr. More, learnedAdvocate appearing for applicants, Mr. Sapkal, learned SeniorAdvocate i/by Mrs. Chaudhari, learned Advocate appearing forrespondent Nos.3(A) to 3(A-5), Mrs. Shinde holding for Mr. P. M.Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.4 to 7 andMr. Natu, learned Advocate appearing for respondent nos.11 and12. 2.The present application is moved before this Court seekingstay to the impugned notice dated 11.06.2024 issued by CircleOfficer, Gategaon, by which delivery of possession of land bearingSurvey No.113/B (Gut No.155) admeasuring 4H 3R has been (4) ca-5803-2024.odtscheduled in favour of original applicants [present respondentnos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5)] under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancyand Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘HT and AL Act, 1950’).3.Mr. Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate appearing for theapplicants submits that substantive writ petition is filed by theapplicants, thereby raising challenge to the order dated 02.01.2024passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar (for short ‘MRT’), thereby dismissing Appeal andconfirming order of Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Latur inFile No.2019/Land Reforms/Tenancy/KV-185, by which directionswere given to Tahsildar, Land Reforms, Latur to undertakeproceeding under Section 40, 38 and 38(E) and extend benefits tolegal heirs of protected tenant i.e. Maruti Nagu. During pendencyof writ petition, learned Tahsildar, Land Reforms proceededfurther and passed order declaring Maruti Nagu to be protectedtenant in respect of land in question in terms of Sections 38 and38(E) of the HT and AL Act, 1950 and also declared thatrespondent nos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5) are entitled to tenancy rights beinglegal heirs of Maruti Nagu. Further, purchase price came to befixed under Section 38(E) and ownership certificate came to beissued. 4.Mr. Katneshwarkar would further submit that respondentnos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5) claims that Maruti Nagu Andhare wasprotected tenant of land Survey No.113/B (Gut No.155)admeasuring 4H 3R situated at village Sakhara, Tq. and Dist.Latur. Since Maruti Nagu was cultivating land, he was declared asprotected tenant and Sanad to that effect was issued in his favour.However, in the year 1963, he was illegally dispossessed.Consequently, they claimed relief of restoration of possession under (5) ca-5803-2024.odtSection 98 of the HT and AL Act, 1950. However, said applicationwas rejected vide order dated 13.08.2013. The order of DeputyCollector was challenged before MRT vide AppealNo.102/A/2013/Latur. The MRT was pleased to partly allow theAppeal vide judgment and order dated 30.08.2017 and remandedmatter back to Deputy Collector, Latur for fresh decision afterhearing the parties. 5.Mr. Katneshwarkar would further submit that althoughinitially proceeding was moved before MRT and prosecuted only bytwo respondents i.e. respondent nos.A and A-1, many other partieswere illegally added after remand of the matter to Dy Collector.Not only that, the pleadings and prayers were also amended,thereafter, impugned order dated 03.05.2021 was passed by theCollector, thereby directing Tahsildar, Latur to take further stepsin in tune with Sections 8, 34, 37, 38 and 38(E) of the HT and ALAct, 1950. Mr. Katneshwarkar would submit that said order waschallenged in Appeal before MRT vide Appeal No.32-A-2021-Latur.During pendency of said Appeal, interim stay was granted.However, Appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 02.01.2024.The applicants thereafter filed present writ petition and duringpendency of this writ petition, now notice has been issued fordelivery of possession by dispossessing applicants, who are inpossession of land for last 50 to 60 years. He would, therefore, urgethat till the matter is heard on merits, possession of applicantsneeds to be protected.6.Per contra, Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate appearingfor respondent nos.3(A) to 3(A-5) submits that infact no relief canbe granted in this writ petition. He would invite attention of thisCourt to order dated 12.02.2024 passed in this petition, (6) ca-5803-2024.odtparticularly paragraph no.5 of the order, wherein this Courtobserved that this is not a fit case to grant protection to thepossession of petitioners. Mr. Sapkal would further submit thatorder of Additional Collector, Land Reforms, Latur dated03.05.2021 in File No.2019/Land Reforms/Tenancy/KV-185 hasbeen already implemented. The learned Tahsildar, Land Reforms,Latur in pursuance to the said order decided further rights of theparties. The certificate under Section 38(E) of the HT and AL Act,1950 is already issued. The respondent nos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5) arenow declared as LRs of protected tenant and ownership isconferred in their favour. The applicants before this Court havealready sold out land in favour of third parties under variousregistered sale deeds and lost their locus to prosecute present writpetition and cannot claim any relief as against respondent nos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5), who are declared to be owners. Relying upon theobservations of this Court in case of Ramkuwar RamkishanPallod, deceased through L.Rs. And Another Vs.Krushnanath Sajan Belhekar and Anr.1, he would submit thatonce certificate of ownership has been issued on deposit of purchaseprice, unless certificate is set aside, rights crystallized in favour oftenants cannot be taken away and, therefore, any proceedingcannot be entertained as long as certificate of ownership subsists.7.I have given in depth consideration to the submissionsadvanced on behalf of the learned Advocates appearing forrespective parties. I have perused documents on record. It appearsthat, question of grant of interim relief in present writ petition wasonce considered by this Court and submissions of parties werenoted in order dated 12.02.2024. At the relevant time, the order ofTahsildar dated 02.09.2022, which has been passed in pursuance of12010 (5) All. M.R. 529. (7) ca-5803-2024.odtthe order passed by the District Collector dated 03.05.2021 in FileNo.2019/Land Reforms/Tenancy/KV-185 was assailed in Appealbefore Collector. Mr. Katneshwarkar points out that said Appealhas been disposed of giving reason that very order under whichlearned Tahsildar issued ownership certificate in favour of legalheirs of tenant is consequence order of the Collector passed inAppeal, which was subject matter of challenge before MRT.Apparently, at present no Appeal is pending against the order ofTahsildar. Further applicants have suitably amended writ petitionincorporating challenge to all the consequential orders includingorder of Tahsildar in present writ petition.8.It is true that, now certificate under Section 38(E) has beenissued in favour of respondent nos.3(A-1) to 3(A-5), but factremains that possession is continued with applicants/petitionerstill this date. Prima facie, there are many arguable questionsinvolved in present writ petition, which are as under. (i) Whether after remand of the matter in earlier round byMRT, the learned Collector could have expanded scope ofproceeding to pass impugned orders invoking Sections 38,38(E) and 40 of HT and AL Act, 1950, when originalproceeding was moved only for restoration of possessionunder Section 98 of the HT and AL Act, 1950? (ii) Whether the Collector could have permitted amendment inthe pleadings to expand scope of proceeding and alsoaddition of various parties, who were not before MRT,when order of remand was passed?(iii) Whether respondent nos.3(A) to 3(A-5) are legal heirs ofalleged protected tenant Maruti Nagu?
Decision
(8) ca-5803-2024.odt(iv) If Maruti Nagu was dispossessed sometimes in the year1963, why proceeding for restoration of possession wasmoved after about 50 years.(v) Whether enquiry conducted by Tahsildar, Land Reforms,Latur leading to certificate of ownership under Section38(E) is legal, proper and in tune with the procedureprescribed under HT and AL Act, 1950? 9.In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of primafacie view that till writ petition is considered and decided onmerits, possession needs to be protected. Consequently, followingorder is passed:ORDERa.Civil Application is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).b.Writ Petitions be placed for admission after eight weeks.Parties are put to the notice that if time permits, writ petitions canbe taken up for final disposal at admission stage.c.Civil Application is disposed of. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/July-2024