Disposed

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013WP/5434/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged an order altering revenue entries and review proceedings via a writ petition under Article 226. The Court held that since an effective appeal remedy was pending with the Sub-Divisional Officer, the writ could not grant the reliefs sought regarding the main order but directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the pending appeal within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; direction given to Sub-Divisional Officer to decide the pending appeal within six months on merits.

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP. 5434-13

¶2

VPH

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION No. 5434 OF 2013

¶6

Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane & Ors. ... Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Sandeep D. Paigude, for the Petitioners.

¶9

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 & 8.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & K. R. SHRIRAM, JJ. DATE : JULY 24, 2013.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8. By this petition, which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners, firstly, are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction from this Court to annul the judgment and order dated 18^th May 2012 passed by Respondent No. 5 – Tahsildar, taluka Purandar, Saswad Pune. In the alternative, the Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order dated 18^th May 2012. Secondly, the Petitioners are also seeking appropriate writ, order and direction to annul the Review Proceedings, which are pending on the file of

¶14

1 / 5

¶15

WP. 5434-13

¶16

Respondent No. 4. - Tahsildar, Taluka Bhor, District Pune or for quashing the said Review Petition. Thirdly, the Petitioners are further seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for quashing and setting aside the order, rejecting the Petitioners' stay application dated 25.3.2013, passed by Respondent No. 3 – the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhor, pending Appeal No. 64 of 2013; Fourthly, the Petitioners are seeking a direction to allow the stay application which was filed in Appeal No. 64 of 2013 which is pending before the Sub-Divisional Officer; and lastly, Petitioners are seeking appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Sub-Divisional Officer Bhor to decide the appeal, which they have filed, expeditiously.

¶17

Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under:

¶18

. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had purchased the land by a registered sale-deed in 2009 and mutation entry was made in the record of rights on 23^rd December 2009 in their favour. In April 2011 an Application was filed by Respondent No. 9 before the Tahsildar, seeking the change in the said revenue entry. It is case of the Petitioner that thereafter Tahsildar Purandar in 2011 initiated further revision proceedings and in those proceedings Petitioner No. 1 was added as Respondent No. 14. It is case of the Petitioners that so far as revision application is concerned, without issuing notice and without giving any opportunity therein, said application was allowed and the mutation entry which made in favour of the Petitioners 23.7.2009 was set aside and by virtue of that order, the mutation entry was changed

¶19

2 / 5

¶20

WP. 5434-13

¶21

vide M. E. No 289 in the record of rights. It is submitted the Petitioners have come to know about said orders, and therefore, they preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer. They have also filed an application for stay of the impugned order. However, the application for stay was rejected. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 18.5.2012 which was passed without giving any notice or intimation. It is submitted that the mutation entry was certified on 6^th August, 2012 and name of the Petitioners were deleted in December 2012. The Petitioners, therefore, by this petition are seeking writ, order and direction for quashing & setting aside order dated 18.5.2012.

¶22

It appears that in the mean time, the Petitioners sold part of the property to Petitioner Nos. 3 to 14 and the mutation entry was made of the said sale. It is case of the Petitioners that Tahsildar suo motu by exercising powers vested in him under section of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code initiated review proceedings and in the said revenue proceedings, notices were issued. Petitioners are seeking appropriate, writ and direction for quashing the said review proceeding which has been initiated by the Tahsildar. It is submitted that since the impugned order dated 18^th May 2012 has been passed without giving hearing or giving notice of intimation, the said order is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that review proceedings initiated by the Tahsildar are without jurisdiction and are not maintainable, and as such, therefore, the review proceedings also needs to be quashed.

¶23

3 / 5

¶24

WP. 5434-13

¶25

In our view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. It is an admitted position that against the said order dated 18.5.2012, the Petitioners have availed of the alternate remedy, which was available to them, viz. filing of an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, which appeal is still pending. An application for stay filed therein was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, obviously because, by the time the appeal was filed, the order passed by the Tahsildar has already been executed, and therefore, question of granting stay did not arise. In our view, therefore, Sub-Divisional Officer is justified in rejecting the application for stay. Since the appeal is still pending, now the Petitioners cannot file petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the same reliefs, which they have claimed before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said reliefs, therefore, cannot be granted.

¶26

So far as review proceedings are concerned, it is obvious that the Tahsildar by exercising powers vested in him under section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code has initiated the review proceedings, of which notices have been served on the Petitioners. The Petitioners are entitled to make all submissions which they have made in this petition before the Tahsildar and if any adverse order is passed, they can file an appeal against the said order, since there is appeal remedy available to them. Hence, even the reliefs of quashing review proceeding, cannot, however be entertained in this petition. However, taking into consideration the peculiar facts and

¶27

4 / 5

¶28

WP. 5434-13

¶29

circumstances of the case, we are inclined to direct the SubDivisional Officer to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within a period of six months, after hearing the Petitioners and the Respondents, on merits and in accordance with law. All contentions raised by the parties in this petition are kept open and the Petitioners may avail of an alternate remedy which they have not exhausted. Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

Vinayak Halemath

¶31

5 / 5

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Sachin Uttamrao Sonawane and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Avinash Yashwant Shaligram and Ors. Vs Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Balaji Mahila Shikshan Prasar and Samaj Kalyan Sanstha, through President, Mrs. Snehal v. Pawar Vs the Commissioner, Mira-Bhayander Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Shri. Kundansing Pandit Thoke Vs President and Upper District Collector Divisional Caste Verification Committee and Ors.

Shri. Anant Dharma Mhatre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Ranjana Shantaram Lahane Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept or Revenue and Ors.

New Ram Roadlines Nd Ors. Vs M/S. Dombivli Grain Merchants Association through Its President Shri. Satyawan v. Mhatre and Ors.