S.S.Patil and Others Vs B.T.Shevale

¶1

IN THE	HIGH	COURT	OF	JUDICATURE	AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE		SIDE,		CIVIL	JURISDICTION
LETTERS	PAT	ENT IN	APPEAL	NO.129	OF 1996
WRIT		PETITION		NO.1962	of 1996
1.Shri Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil				)
2.Shri Ajitkumar Shivgonda Patil				)
3.Shri Shivgonda Satgonda Patil Versus				)..APPELL	ANTS
1.Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale				)
2.Shri Annasaheb Tukaram Shevale				)
3.Sri Appasaheb Tukaram Shevale				)
4.Smt. Hirabai w/o.Tukaram Shevale				)
5. Sou.Kalawati Ashokrao Jambhale				)
6.Shri Parasu Laxman Shevale				)
7.Shri Biramrao Piraji Shevale				)
8.Shri Santosh Pandurang Shevale 9.Shri Subhash Krishna Shevale 10.Shri Ramchandra Piraji Shevale, 11.Shri Kumar Shankar Shevale				) ) ) )
12.Smt.Shevantabai Shankar Shevale 13.Shri Manohar Satgonda Patil 14.The State of Maharashtra				) ) )..RESPON	DENTS
Mr. N.J.	Patil,		for	the	Appellants.
Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni	with	Mr.	A.A.	Kumbhakon	i, for the
Respondents. CORA DATE	M: F.I. R :1st Sept	EBELLO & A ember, 2004	NOOP V	.MOHTA, JJ.

¶2

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶3

1.		The appeal is directed against t	he judgmen	t dated
20th	June,	1996 of the	learned	single	Judge	of	this
Court. The	learned sin	gle Judge passed the following
order:-

¶4

"In the present matter commissioner has rightly held that petitioner was the tenant of the land. When the land was farefeeted to Government for non-payment of Nazarana under the G.R. of 1965

¶5

-2-

¶6

whenever the land is forefeited, Govt. is bound

¶7

to regrant the land to the tenant.

¶8

	I	n the circumstances th	e Tahsildar w	as wrong	in
	granting	the land to the	petitioners as	held	by
	Commissioner. W.P.			r	ejected."
The	petition t	hough styled under A	rticles 226	and 227	of
the	Constitution	was filed by t	he petitioner	to	impugn
the o	rder dated	29th February, 1996	passed by	the	learned
Commissio	ner, Pune	Division, Pune	arising	from	the
judgment	and	order dated 16th Sept	ember, 1995	passed	by
the	Additional	Collector arising out	of the	judgment	and
order	dated 16th	August, 1994	passed by	the	Sub
Divisional		officer, Ichalkaranji	in Revis	ion ap	plication
No.1	of 1993.	The relief was to	quash and	set aside	the
same.	This is	the only relief	prayed	for in	the
petition.	At th	e hearing of this	appeal on	behalf of	the
appellants	learned	Counsel has conte	nded firstly	that	the
order	passed	by the Tahsildar	was without	jur	isdiction
and	secondly the	proceedings preferred	at the	instance	of
the	contesting	respondents were taken	after a	period	of
17	years.	Even if the Revisional	Jurisdiction	is to	be
exercised	that co	uld not be exerci	sed belatedly.		Learned
Counsel	relies	on the judgment of	the Apex	Court	in
Mohamad	Kavi	Mohamad Amin v.	Fatmabai Ibr	ahim, (1997	) 6
SCC	71 for	the proposition that wh	en there is	no	time
limit exercised	for e within	xercise of power under reasonable time.	statute it It is	should contended	be on

¶9

-3-

¶10

behalf		of	the	appellants	that	the	reasonable time	would
be	the	time		as set	out	under	the provisions of	the
Limitation		Act.		Reliance	is	placed	on the judgment	of a
single		Judge	in	Radhabai	Balkri	shna	Deshpande & Anr.	v.
Babu		Dhondu	She	wale de	ceased	by	L.Rs. Bhika	Dhondu
Shewale		& O	rs.,	2001 (1)	Mh.	L	.J. 629 wherein	the

¶11

learned Judge took a view that the period of 15 years

¶12

could not be said to be reasonable.

¶13

On the other hand on behalf of the respondents

¶14

learned	Counsel	c	ontends	that	the	petiti	on	was	filed
under	Article	227	and	in	these	circu	mstan	ces the	Letters
Patent	Appeal	is	not	maintaina	ble.	Even		otherwise	he
submits	that	there	is	no infir	mity	with	the	order	as the
learned	Single	Judge	could	in	exerc	ise	of	his	supervisory
jurisdiction	un	der	Article	227	correct	the		errors	of law

¶15

committed by Tribunals below and on this ground also this

¶16

Court should not interfere with the said order.

¶17

3.		We have	heard th	e learned Counse	l for the pa	rties
and	we	have	also	perused	the	impugned		orders	starting
with	the	order	of	the Sub	Divisi	onal	Officer.	The	order
in	favour	of	the	appellants	herein	is	dated	30th	March,
1976.		The	Sub	Divisional	officer	has	recor	ded a	finding
that	the Resp	ondent	Tuk	aram who	was	the	tena	nt never	lost
possession	of	his	1	/4th sha	re	and	his	tenancy	was
subsisting		and,	there	fore, oug	ht	to	have	been	protected.
Inspite	of that	in	the	year	1975-76	the	name	of	Shidgonda
Satgonda	was		added	as a	cultivato	r of	3/4th	portion	of
Tukaram	share.		This	change	was	done	by	the	Village

¶18

-4-

¶19

Officer	in his	own authority and,	therefore, allowed	the
Revision	Application.	The Additional	Collector	found
that	there was	some infirmity with the	order of the	Sub
Divisional	officer as	an order could not	have been	passed
without	taking	previous consent of the	Collector.	The
Additional	Collector	, however, treated the	order of	the
Sub	Divisional	Officer as a report	and passed	fresh
orders	setting	aside the	Tahsildar’sorder	directing
recovery	in terms	set out therein and	confirmed the	order
of	the Sub	Divisional Officer. Re	vision preferred	was

¶20

dismissed and so also the Writ Petition against the said

¶21

order.

¶22

4.	Con	sidering	the relief	s, it is clear tha	t what
the appe	llant her	ein	was	challenging	was	the	order	of	the
Tribunals	on	the	grou	nd of	want	of	jurisdic	tion	and
delay.	That	by	itself	cannot	be the	grou	nd to	hold	that
the	appellant	was	invo	king th	e provisi	ons	of	Article	226

¶23

for all purposes. The petition for all purposes was

¶24

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶25

5.		Even other	wise we	find that the	learned S	ingle
Judge	has	treated	the	petition	as	one	under	Article	227
by	exercis	ing	supe	rvisory	jurisdic	tion	by	holding	that
the	order	passed	by		the	Commi	ssioner	was	within

¶26

jurisdiction. In that light of the matter we do not find

¶27

this to be a fit case for interference.

¶28

Once the Tribunals below have entertained the

¶29

Revision Application and the learned Single Judge in

¶30

-5-

¶31

exercise	of	the	supervisory		jurisdiction	has	allowed	the
error of	law	to be	corrected	the	mere	fact	that there	was
a long	delay	cannot	result i	n	reversing	the	orders of	the
Tribunals	below.		A Writ		Court	would	not	allow
technicalities	to	stand	in	the	way of	justice	in	the
matter	and	this	is what	the	learned	Single	Judge	has

¶32

done. It, therefore, calls for no interference. Appeal

¶33

rejected. Ad-interim relief stands vacated.

¶34

Learned Counsel for the appellant prays for stay of the order. In the circumstances this would not be a

¶35

fit case to stay the order. Oral Application for stay

¶36

rejected.

¶37

(F.I. REBELLO, J.)

¶38

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

S.S.Patil and Others v. B.T.Shevale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.S.Patil and Others v. B.T.Shevale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Goma Likrya Bhende and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Gulam Sahab Daud Patel and Anr.

Shweta Prashant Ruikar Vs Prashant Ramchandra Ruikar

Santosh Waman Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Association of Engineering Workers Vs Smt.N.a.Kadam and Anr.

Manisha Girish Pai Vs Laxman v Pai and Anr.