The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's dismissal of a review application. The Tribunal had upheld a mutation cancellation on the ground that the petitioner was not an agriculturist.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2150 OF 2009
Om Jagdish Behl Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
.. Petitioner.
.. Respondents.
Mr.L.H.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne A.G.P. for respondent no.1. Mr.S.A.Mudbidri for respondent no.2.
Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009
P.C.
2
appeal No.13 of 1985. The appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Panvel Division, Panvel vide his judgment and order dated 20.5.1988. That order was challenged in a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, being Revision Application No.174 of 1992. The revision was also dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 27.4.1995. The order passed in the revision was thereafter carried in writ petition No.174 of 1996 before this court. This court, while rejecting the writ petition against the judgment and order dated 27.4.1995 passed in revision application No.174 of 1992, passed the following order:
“In the present matter I am not inclined to interfere in the matter. Hence W.P. Is rejected.
However Ld.Adv. For the petitioner wants to move the M.R.T. In Review.
It is not for this Court to grant liberty to move for Review. If the petitioner is so advised the Petitioner may move M.R.T. office is directed to return R. & Ps. to M.R.T. forthwith.”
3
No.4052 of 1997 before this court. That writ petition was, allowed vide order dated 29.1.2006 and the tribunal was directed to decide the review application on merits. The tribunal thereafter considered the review application on merits and dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 15.10.2008. This judgment of the Tribunal is impugned in the present writ petition.
4
the judgment and order on which the petitioner is heavily relying upon i.e. judgment dated 24.10.1991 was relied upon by the petitioner on both the occasions and the Tribunal in the revision as well as in the review considered the said judgment and held that the petitioner is not an agriculturist. It cannot be overlooked that the order dated 27.4.1995 passed in revision No.174 of 1992 was challenged before this court in writ petition No.174 of 1996 and that writ petition was rejected. The order passed in the revision No.174 of 1992 dated 27.4.1995 attained finality. The petitioner admittedly did not carry that order further and chose to file review application. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal in the review application. I find that the learned Member of the tribunal has considered the contentions of the petitioner, seeking review, in proper perspective and for the reasons recorded in paragraph 6 to 9 has rightly dismissed the same. In short the Tribunal held that no case for review was made out by the petitioner. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner could not and did not point out any error of law committed by the tribunal while disposing of the review application. In the circumstances I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner has made out a valid case for review of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order dismissing his review application dated 15.10.2008.
Whether the petitioner could successfully argue that a prior judgment in a different property held him to be an agriculturist, binding the Tribunal in the present proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Jagdish Behl
The State of Maharashtra
D.B. BHOSALE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
