Partly allowed

Ramesh Fakira Patil v. Chintaman Janu Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Jul 2012WP/3119/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged a revisional order that rejected a revision challenging a land revenue appeal decision. The High Court held that the revisional authority's conclusions were unsustainable as they lacked discussion and reference to specific evidence. The High Court set aside the revisional order but upheld the original appellate order directing a fresh inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order set aside; judgment and order of Additional Collector dated 11.10.2005 upheld; Sub Divisional Officer directed to act as per said order.

2)This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.2.2011, passed by Additional Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik in RTS/Revision/No.356/2005. By the impugned order, the revision filed by the petitioners herein, challenging the judgment and order of the Additional Collector, Jalgaon dated 11th October, 2005 in Appeal No. 71/2005, came to be rejected.

3)The counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that, there was no occasion for the Additional Commissioner to observe in the impugned judgment that there is no need of de novo inquiry in the matter. In fact, the Additional Commissioner had

travelled beyond the scope of the revision. It is submitted that the Additional Commissioner in his judgment has observed that, - though the decision is taken in respect of reviving the N.A. Permission, however, no such directions in the prescribed format are issued.

.According to learned Counsel for the petitioners, the findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner that, since the petitioners have not started using the land for NA purposes within one year, the NA permission renders infructuous, is contrary to further observation in the impugned judgment. The Additional Commissioner himself has observed in the judgment that the said permission is revived, though specific order is not passed to that effect.

.It is further submitted that the Additional Commissioner has taken into consideration the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, which is after 13 months from the date of granting NA permission in favour of the petitioner.

.It is further submitted that the original applicant has no locus to challenge the NA permission granted in favour of the petitioner since he is owner of Gut No.297/2 and he has nothing to do with Gut Nos.296 and 296/1. It is further submitted that the observations of the Additional Commissioner, that the Gut No.296 is being used for burying the children for considerable time, are contrary to the actual report of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Sub Divisional Officer has visited the spot and recorded statements of the villagers and recorded his satisfaction that

4)Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no reason why the Additional Commissioner should not accept the report of his own officer, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer. It is submitted that the findings/observations of the Additional Commissioner that the petitioner has not carried construction as per the sanctioned plan or there are no roads etc. in the said plan, is without any discussion, whatsoever, in the impugned judgment. There is no basis to observe that the transactions in respect of selling of five plots by the petitioner, are illegal. The sum and substance of the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner is that, the conclusions/observations of the Additional Commissioner in the impugned judgment and order are without any detailed discussion and also contrary to the record and report of the Sub-Divisional officer.

5)Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner has no objection if the order dated 11th October, 2005 passed by Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Appeal No.71/2005, is allowed to sustain and confirmed, however, the direction of the Additional Commissioner, Nashik not to conduct fresh inquiry in the matter needs to be interfered.

authority has rightly held that the petitioners herein have not started using the land for NA purposes within one year from the date of grant of NA permission and, therefore, after completion of the said period of one year, automatically that NA permission stands cancelled. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the said findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner. It is submitted that Respondent No.1 has 12 paise share in the well-water situated in Gut no.296 and by granting NA permission, his right to fetch well water situated in Gut No.296 gets affected. The learned Counsel further submitted that the reasons assigned and findings recorded by the Additional Commissioner are on the basis of Gram Panchayat Resolution and also on the basis of record and documents which were placed on record. Therefore, this court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.

7)According to learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, it was permissible to the Additional Commissioner to hold that, it is not necessary to remit the matter back for fresh inquiry to Sub Divisional Officer. Therefore, he prays that writ petition may be rejected.

rival submissions advanced by the parties. The revision filed by the petitioner was against the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2005, passed by the Collector, in Appeal No.71/2005, by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was partly allowed, in which direction was given to the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner to conduct fresh inquiry.

10)Upon careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the revisional authority, it appears that some observations are recorded by the revisional authority without adverting to specific documents or without any discussion in that regard. The Additional Commissioner has not adverted to the report of Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner on the aspect as to whether Gut No.296 is being utilized frequently in the past for burying children. There is no mention to such report in the impugned judgment. Though there is reference to the Gram Panchayat resolution by the revisional authority, however, the revisional authority has not considered the contention of the revision petitioner that such resolution was passed after 13 months from grant NA permission to the petitioner. It would be a different matter, if the Additional Commissioner has considered the said submissions and rejected. But, from the perusal of the impugned judgment it is crystal clear that there is no discussion on that aspect at all. There is also observation by the Additional Commissioner that, as per the permission granted to the petitioner to the said property, there are no roads etc. However,

findings/conclusions reached by the Additional Commissioner are without adverting to the specific evidence/documents and also without specific discussion on each aspect of the matter. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order is set aside.

11)Since the counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that the petitioner has no grievance if the judgment and order of the appellate authority, i.e. dated 11th October, 2005 is allowed to sustain, in that view of the matter, the judgment and order dated 11th October, 2005 passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon is upheld. The concerned authority, i.e. Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner to act as per the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalgaon in Appeal No.71/2005.

Ramesh Fakira Patil v. Chintaman Janu Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Fakira Patil v. Chintaman Janu Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savita Vijaysing Rawat Vs the Maharashtra Agro Industries Development Corporation Ltd.

Prakash Ramrao Kalyankar Vs Siddarth Pannalal Kankariya

Dnyandeo Pundlik Attarde and Ors. Vs Swarupkumar Bhagchand Lunkad

Gangubai Bhagwanrao Pawatekar.(L.Rs.)Ambuba. Vs Kishanrao Limbajirao Kadam and Others.

Prathvi Creators Thorugh Its Partners Vs Chandrakant Bhagwandas Shah and Ors.

Mirza Ahmed Baig S/O Mirza Rahim Baig Vs Chief Executive Officer, Mah. State Board of Wakf and Ors.