Partly allowed

Smt. Sindhu Vasant Babar v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar, Sangola and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Nov 2014WP/4420/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a Civil Court decree and Maha Lok Adalat award in a related suit could not bind the petitioner, a legal representative of a farming tenant. The Court declared the award null and void as it contravened a prior order directing tenancy proceedings before appropriate authorities under the Tenancy Act.

What did the court decide?

The decree/award of 29 July 2012 declared null and void; it does not bind the petitioner; all tenancy issues kept open for competent authority.

Smt. Sindhu Vasant Babar Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

WP.4420-2014

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.4420 OF 2014

¶6

Smt. Sindhu Vasant Babar ..Petitioner Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Sunil G. Jagdane for Petitioner. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. Milind Deshmukh for Respondent Nos.5 to 7.

¶9

CORAM: A.S. OKA &

¶10

A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 17^th November 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned AGP for 1^st to 4^th Respondents and the learned Counsel for the 5^th to 7^th Respondents.

¶13

2 Considering the narrow controversy involved in this petition, the same is forthwith taken up for final disposal.

¶14

3 The Petitioner claims to be the legal representative of one Tukaram Narayan Babar. The Petitioner alleges that the said Tukaram Babar was an agricultural tenant in respect of the agricultural land subject matter of this petition. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the order made by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT),

¶15

¶16

WP.4420-2014

¶17

Sangola (Exhibit-A to the petition) has been challenged by the Petitioner by preferring an appeal.

¶18

4 The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has invited attention of

¶19

the Court to the Consent Terms filed in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2012 filed by Namdeo Babar and 18 others against the 5^th to 7^th Respondents herein. He pointed out that the parties to the suit filed the Consent Terms on 17^th March 2012 and the Consent Terms were taken on record in the Maha Lok Adalat held on 29^th July 2012. His contention is that if the terms and conditions of the Consent Terms are perused, it is apparent that the Civil Court has purported to record the surrender of agricultural tenancy. His submission is that the Clause-1 of the Consent Terms provides that the Plaintiffs in the suit are an agricultural tenants and they are entitled to purchase the lands in question in accordance with the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy And Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “the said Act”). He submitted that the Clause 2 of the Consent Terms shows that the Plaintiffs in the suit have purported to surrender their rights as agricultural tenants to the 5^th to 7^th Respondents who are claiming to be the landlords. He, therefore, submitted that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the issues which could have been decided exclusively by the authorities under the said Act. His submission is that the order made on the

¶20

¶21

WP.4420-2014

¶22

basis of the Consent Terms is void and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

¶23

5 The learned Counsel for the 5^th to 7^th Respondents states that independently of the said order, the proceedings have already been filed by the parties to the suit before the authorities under the said Act. He urged that in fact the order on the Consent Terms records that the parties should file appropriate proceedings before the Tenancy Authorities. We have also heard the leaned AGP appearing for the 1^st to 4^th Respondents.

¶24

6 We have carefully considered the submissions. It is an admitted position that the Petitioner is not a party to the Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2012. It is, therefore, obvious that the Consent Order or Consent Decree passed in the suit will not bind the Petitioner.

¶25

7 We have perused the Consent Terms. Clause 1 of the Consent Terms virtually declares that the Plaintiffs in the suit are agricultural tenants and there is a declaration that they are entitled to purchase the said lands. Clause 2 of the Consent Terms provides that the Plaintiffs have agreed to surrender their tenancy rights which are to surrendered in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. Clause 4 of the Consent Terms refers to the proceedings pending before the Tahasildar. It records that the Plaintiffs will have to surrender their tenancy rights thereby

¶26

¶27

WP.4420-2014

¶28

confirming the ownership rights of the 5^th to 7^th Respondents. Clause 3 records that the Plaintiffs have no subsisting right, title and interest in the lands in question.

¶29

8 The Consent Terms proceeds on the footing that the Plaintiffs are agricultural tenants who are protected by the provisions of the said Act. Therefore, Clause 3 of the Consent Terms which records that the Plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the lands subject matter of the tenancy, could not have been included in the Consent Terms and in any event, the Trial Court could not have passed an order in terms of Clause 3 of the Consent Terms. We must note here that the Section 85 of the said Act excludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with any question including the question whether a person is or was at any time a tenant by or under the said Act which is required to be settled or decided or dealt with by the Mamlatdar or ALT.

¶30

9 We may make a reference to the order dated 17^th March 2012

¶31

passed by the Trial Court Judge (Learned Civil Judge of Sangola) on the Consent Terms. The said order reads thus:

¶32

“Heard both sides. They all are present. Identification duly made contents of compromise are admitted voluntarily when read out to parties matter is settled through Advocate mediator. Hence verified keep for order, with direction to parties to file all relevant papers from tenancy proceedings pending before

WP.4420-2014

Revenue Authority.”

10 We must note here that the learned Judge did not pass a decree

¶37

in terms of the Consent Terms and the learned Judge only verified the settlement and kept the suit for passing order. The parties were directed to file on record the relevant papers of the tenancy proceedings. Perhaps the learned Judge was conscious of the provisions of the said Act including Section 85 thereof, and therefore, before passing any further order in terms of the Consent Terms, he directed the parties to file on record the relevant papers of the proceedings pending before the Tenancy Authorities. When such specific order was passed on 17^th March 2012, it is obvious that the learned Judge intended to consider the legal position and thereafter, to pass appropriate order on the Consent Terms. We are surprised to note that notwithstanding the order dated 17^th March 2012, the suit was kept before the Maha Lok Adalat on 29^th July 2012. The Petitioner has annexed the photocopy of the decree passed in the suit. Page-20 shows that the Trial Court treated as if the suit was disposed of by the order dated 29^th July 2012 by passing an award. Perhaps the Members of the Maha Lok Adalat completely ignored the order dated 17^th March 2012. In the face of the said order, the suit could not have been disposed of by passing an award in terms of the Consent Terms.

¶38

¶39

WP.4420-2014

¶40

11 Considering the Sections 20 and 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, the Maha Lok Adalat could have passed an award provided the compromise arrived at between the parties was legal and valid. There was already an order of the Civil Court directing that the suit should be kept for passing orders on the Consent Terms after considering the record of the tenancy cases.

¶41

12 We are constrained to observe that the order dated 29^th July 2012 in the form of award made by the Maha Lok Adalat will have to be completely ignored, as the same is contrary to the express earlier order passed by the Civil Court in the same suit on 17^th March 2012.

¶42

13 However, as stated earlier, by the Consent Terms, the issue of tenancy has not been decided. The Consent Terms cannot be construed to mean that the Plaintiffs to the suit have surrendered their alleged rights as tenants. The learned Counsel appearing for the 5^th to 7^th Respondents states that independently of the Consent Terms, appropriate proceedings have been filed before the Authorities for recording the surrender of tenancy.

¶43

14 We, therefore, disposed of the petition by passing following order:

¶44

(i) The decree/award made in the Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2012 on 29^th July 2012 shall not bind the Petitioner;

¶45

¶46

WP.4420-2014

¶47

(ii) All issues in relation to the rights claimed by the Petitioner are

¶48

expressly kept open to be decided by the appropriate competent authority in accordance with law;

¶49

(iii) We declare that the award made by the Maha Lok Adalat on 29^th July 2012 is null and void being contrary to the express order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sangola on 17^th March 2014;

¶50

(iv) We make it clear that there is no adjudication made by the Civil

¶51

Court in the said suit as regards the rights claimed by the parties to the suit as well as by the Petitioner;

¶52

(v) We make it clear that all contentions of the parties in all pending matters before the authorities under the said Act are expressly kept open;

¶53

(vi) Rule is partly made absolute in above terms.

¶54

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Smt. Sindhu Vasant Babar v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar, Sangola and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sindhu Vasant Babar v. State of Maharashtra, through Tahsildar, Sangola and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Saifan Khajabhai Mujawar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sunil Malleshappa Gore Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Sahajirao Bhaoso Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Ors.

Shri. Maruti Namdeo Lavate and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Upper Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Shri. Pandurang Shivaji Waringekar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing and Ors.

Mr. Nimesh C. Mehta Vs Mrs. Nita M. Mehta