The Division Bench concluded that the Collector was bound to issue
notice to the tenants of the agricultural lands before holding an inquiry and
must permit the tenants to participate in the inquiry proceedings under
Section 88B
of the said Act, meaning thereby that there is a lis between the
tenants and the landlord in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.454 OF 1994
Hanuman P. Shingan & Ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
Vithal Deo Karad Public Trust & Ors. ..Respondents
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 17th July, 2014
Citation;2014(6) MHLJ 198
Read original judgment here;click here
1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 1681993
passed
by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT for short) holding that no revision
lies against the order passed under Section 88B
and the MRT therefore
directed the application to be returned to the Applicant for presentation to the
proper authority. The Petitioners were the Applicants before the MRT in the
said revision proceedings. The Petitioners claim to be the tenants of the land
bearing survey Nos.235 and 234 totally admeasuring 2 Hectors and 46 Ares
situated at Kasbe Karad Taluka Karad, District Satara. The Respondent No.1 is
a public trust who had filed an application under Section 88B
of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 (for short the said Act), seeking
exemption certificate as postulated in the said Section. The Petitioners had
filed their reply to the said application. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the
said application filed by the Respondent No.1 by his order dated 2341993
and thereby made the Respondent No.1 trust entitled to the certificate under
Section 88B
of the said Act. The Petitioners aggrieved by the said order dated
2341993
preferred a Revision Application before the MRT which was
numbered as MRT/NS/7/3/1993. The MRT as indicated above disposed of the
said application on the ground that a revision would not lie against the
certificate granted under Section 88B
of the said Act. The issue which
therefore arises for consideration is as to whether a notice is required to be
given to the tenants in a proceeding under Section 88B
of the said act and
whether a Revision would lie against the certificate issued under Section 88B.
3 The said issue had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vs. Kisan
Namdeo Pawar & Ors.1 The Learned Single Judge B.A.Masodkar, J. (as His
Lordship then was) held that in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned, the same are between the Collector and the Trust and there is no lis
in so far as the tenants are concerned. The Learned Judge held that no notice is
therefore required to be issued to the tenants in respect of the proceedings
under Section 88B.
The Learned Judge relied upon the Judgment of the Apex
Court in Maneksha Ardeshir Irani Vs. Manekji Edulji Mistry2 The issue had
1 1979 Mh.L.J.687
2 AIR 1974 SC 2123
8)
once again come up before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kerba
Dattu Borachate & Ors. Vs. Sheshashai & Vishnu Trust1. The Division Bench
comprising of M.L.Pendse and M.F. Saldanna JJ. (as their Lordships then were)
held that the reliance placed by the Learned Single Judge in Shrimant
Jagdeorao Pawar on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ardeshir Irani's case
was not accurate. The Division Bench held that observations were made by the
Apex Court in the peculiar facts of the said case before it and it is not possible
to conclude that the Apex Court intended to lay down that in the inquiry
conducted by the Collector under Section 88B(
2) of the said Act, it is not
necessary to serve any notice upon the tenants whose valuable property rights
would be destroyed by the grant of exemption certificate. It is in the said
circumstance that the Division Bench therefore observed that the reliance
placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Maneksha Ardeshi Irani's case by
the Learned Single Judge in Shrimant Jagdeorao Pawar's case was not
accurate. The Division Bench concluded that the Collector was bound to issue
notice to the tenants of the agricultural lands before holding an inquiry and
must permit the tenants to participate in the inquiry proceedings under
Section 88B
of the said Act, meaning thereby that there is a lis between the
tenants and the landlord in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned. The sequitur to the said Judgment of the Division Bench in Kerba
Dattu Borachate's case would be that the certificate granted under Section
88B
would be revisable and therefore the Revision Application would be
1 1990 MhLJ 1183
8)
maintainable against the grant of the certificate under Section 88B.
The
impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Revision Application is relegated
back to the MRT for a denovo consideration of the same. Needless to state that
all the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being urged
before the MRT. On remand the MRT to decide the Revision Application
expeditiously and latest by 3132015.
The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties
to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
4 In view of the fact that there is a stay operating in the above
Petition, the same would operate pending the decision in the Revision
Application.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
Print Page
notice to the tenants of the agricultural lands before holding an inquiry and
must permit the tenants to participate in the inquiry proceedings under
Section 88B
of the said Act, meaning thereby that there is a lis between the
tenants and the landlord in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.454 OF 1994
Hanuman P. Shingan & Ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
Vithal Deo Karad Public Trust & Ors. ..Respondents
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.
DATE : 17th July, 2014
Citation;2014(6) MHLJ 198
Read original judgment here;click here
1 Rule. With the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties
made returnable forthwith and heard.
2 The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 1681993
passed
by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT for short) holding that no revision
lies against the order passed under Section 88B
and the MRT therefore
directed the application to be returned to the Applicant for presentation to the
proper authority. The Petitioners were the Applicants before the MRT in the
said revision proceedings. The Petitioners claim to be the tenants of the land
bearing survey Nos.235 and 234 totally admeasuring 2 Hectors and 46 Ares
situated at Kasbe Karad Taluka Karad, District Satara. The Respondent No.1 is
a public trust who had filed an application under Section 88B
of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 (for short the said Act), seeking
exemption certificate as postulated in the said Section. The Petitioners had
filed their reply to the said application. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the
said application filed by the Respondent No.1 by his order dated 2341993
and thereby made the Respondent No.1 trust entitled to the certificate under
Section 88B
of the said Act. The Petitioners aggrieved by the said order dated
2341993
preferred a Revision Application before the MRT which was
numbered as MRT/NS/7/3/1993. The MRT as indicated above disposed of the
said application on the ground that a revision would not lie against the
certificate granted under Section 88B
of the said Act. The issue which
therefore arises for consideration is as to whether a notice is required to be
given to the tenants in a proceeding under Section 88B
of the said act and
whether a Revision would lie against the certificate issued under Section 88B.
3 The said issue had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this
Court in the case of Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar Vs. Kisan
Namdeo Pawar & Ors.1 The Learned Single Judge B.A.Masodkar, J. (as His
Lordship then was) held that in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned, the same are between the Collector and the Trust and there is no lis
in so far as the tenants are concerned. The Learned Judge held that no notice is
therefore required to be issued to the tenants in respect of the proceedings
under Section 88B.
The Learned Judge relied upon the Judgment of the Apex
Court in Maneksha Ardeshir Irani Vs. Manekji Edulji Mistry2 The issue had
1 1979 Mh.L.J.687
2 AIR 1974 SC 2123
8)
once again come up before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kerba
Dattu Borachate & Ors. Vs. Sheshashai & Vishnu Trust1. The Division Bench
comprising of M.L.Pendse and M.F. Saldanna JJ. (as their Lordships then were)
held that the reliance placed by the Learned Single Judge in Shrimant
Jagdeorao Pawar on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ardeshir Irani's case
was not accurate. The Division Bench held that observations were made by the
Apex Court in the peculiar facts of the said case before it and it is not possible
to conclude that the Apex Court intended to lay down that in the inquiry
conducted by the Collector under Section 88B(
2) of the said Act, it is not
necessary to serve any notice upon the tenants whose valuable property rights
would be destroyed by the grant of exemption certificate. It is in the said
circumstance that the Division Bench therefore observed that the reliance
placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Maneksha Ardeshi Irani's case by
the Learned Single Judge in Shrimant Jagdeorao Pawar's case was not
accurate. The Division Bench concluded that the Collector was bound to issue
notice to the tenants of the agricultural lands before holding an inquiry and
must permit the tenants to participate in the inquiry proceedings under
Section 88B
of the said Act, meaning thereby that there is a lis between the
tenants and the landlord in so far as the proceedings under Section 88B
is
concerned. The sequitur to the said Judgment of the Division Bench in Kerba
Dattu Borachate's case would be that the certificate granted under Section
88B
would be revisable and therefore the Revision Application would be
1 1990 MhLJ 1183
8)
maintainable against the grant of the certificate under Section 88B.
The
impugned order is accordingly set aside. The Revision Application is relegated
back to the MRT for a denovo consideration of the same. Needless to state that
all the contentions of the parties on merits are kept open for being urged
before the MRT. On remand the MRT to decide the Revision Application
expeditiously and latest by 3132015.
The Petition is allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties
to bear their respective costs of the Petition.
4 In view of the fact that there is a stay operating in the above
Petition, the same would operate pending the decision in the Revision
Application.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
No comments:
Post a Comment