Partly allowed

Huru Begum Sharif Khan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC28 Jan 2014WP/837/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order condoning thirty years delay and another upholding the Revenue Minister's jurisdiction. The court upheld the delay condonation but quashed the jurisdictional order, directing the Minister to decide jurisdiction and maintainability afresh.

What did the court decide?

The order condoning delay is upheld. The order upholding the Revenue Minister's jurisdiction is quashed. The Minister is directed to decide jurisdiction and maintainability afresh.

Huru Begum Sharif Khan and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 wp 837.14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 837 OF 2014

¶4

Huru Begum Sharif Khan and another .. Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri S. B. Talekar, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 4 to 8.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2014.

¶9

PER COURT :

¶10

. The present petitioners assail the order dated 21.09.2013 condoning the delay, so also the order dated 04.01.2014 upholding the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 2.

¶11

Mr. Talekar, the learned counsel submits that, there is abnormal delay of thirty years in challenging the order dated 11.10.1982. No proper explanation has been given. In number of proceedings there is reference to the succession and the property

¶12

2 wp 837.14

¶13

being taken under Government supervision, still the order dated 11.10.1982 was not challenged earlier and the same is sought to be assailed after thirty years.

¶14

The learned counsel further submits that, Hon'ble Minister did not get any jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings U/Sec. 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short "M.L.R.C."), wherein challenge is to the order dated 11.10.1982 passed by the then Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. According to the learned counsel, when the Hon'ble Minister lacks inherent jurisdiction to entertain the proceedings, he does not get jurisdiction to condone the delay. The respondents have not explained the delay. There is no sufficient cause. According to the learned counsel, the order dated 11.10.1982 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which is assailed before the Hon'ble Minister is passed under the provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiry Act and Hon'ble Minister did not get any jurisdiction to entertain revision U/Sec. 257 of the M. L. R. C. These aspects are not considered, nor the said aspect is dealt by the Hon'ble Minister while passing the impugned order. The order dated 11.10.1982 is referable to the provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiry Act and said order can be assailed naturally before the

¶15

3 wp 837.14

¶16

Board of Revenue i. e. the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

¶17

Mr. Kale, the learned counsel submits that, the present respondents are the purchasers of the said properties vide registered instrument in the year 1959. The said order dated 11.10.1982 is passed behind the back of present respondents. The respondents were never issued, nor were served with any notice. Therefore, the respondents did not get the knowledge of the said order. For the first time in proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner in revision filed by present petitioners, the present respondents could get the knowledge of the said order and immediately steps are taken to assail the same. According to the learned counsel the order dated 11.10.1982 does not state under what provisions the same is passed. In fact, same was also with regard to mutation entry and as such jurisdiction U/Sec. 257 is rightly invoked. Even otherwise the Hon'ble Minister U/Sec. 257 of the M. L. R. C. has got supervisory jurisdiction to consider the order passed by the subordinate authorities.

¶18

With the assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the orders. From the documents placed on record or in any of the proceedings before the authorities, the reference of the order

¶19

4 wp 837.14

¶20

dated 11.10.1982 which is assailed by present respondents does not appear. Even it does not appear that the present respondents were served with the notice and the stay order. In the present matter, I am not concerned with the legality or illegality of the order dated 11.10.1982. I am considering the same only for the purpose of considering the order condoning the delay. It is trite that while considering the application for condonation of delay, the merits of the proceedings are not required to be considered. By condoning the delay, it would not ipso facto mean that the Hon'ble Minister has accepted the aspect of jurisdiction or that the Hon'ble Minister has the jurisdiction. While condoning the delay the authority is required to consider the grounds raised for the delay i. e. whether the same would come within the realm of sufficient cause. As the said order does not seem to have been implemented earlier, as mutation entries are not effectuated pursuant to the said order earlier and also the fact that present respondents were not shown to be parties thereto, in absence of the same the order condoning the delay needs no interference.

¶21

The petitioners had filed application challenging the maintainability of the said proceedings filed by the respondents U/Sec. 257 on the ground that Hon'ble Minister did not have the

¶22

5 wp 837.14

¶23

jurisdiction to entertain the said proceedings. It is the contention of the petitioners that the order dated 11.10.1982 is passed invoking provisions of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiry Act. The Hon'ble Minister while passing the order on the application for maintainability has observed that, the order does not state the provision under which the said order dated 11.10.1982 was passed and he further states that he has jurisdiction to consider the order dated 11.10.1982. It was expected from the Hon'ble Minister to give a clear finding as to the provision under which he is considering the impugned order dated 11.10.1982 having been passed and thereafter consider the aspect of his jurisdiction. The same does not appear to have been done.

¶24

Considering the above, I deem it appropriate to pass the following order.

¶25

The order dated 21.09.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister, condoning the delay is upheld and needs no interference.

¶26

The order dated 04.01.2014 upholding the jurisdiction for respondent No. 2 is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 2

¶27

6 wp 837.14

¶28

shall consider the application filed by petitioners raising the objection about maintainability and jurisdiction afresh along with revision. The parties including the concerned authorities are entitled to make necessary submissions in that regard. The Hon'ble Minister shall consider the aspect of jurisdiction and the maintainability on its own merits on the basis of the submissions made, the provisions of law and record and shall decide the same along with the main proceedings filed by the present respondents U/Sec. 257 of the M. L. R. C. The writ petition accordingly is disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions, however, with no order as to costs.

¶29

The parties shall appear before the Hon'ble Minister on 04.02.2014. All contentions of respective parties with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and other merits of the matter are kept open. The Hon'ble Minister shall decide the revision expeditiously. The parties shall co-operate in expeditious disposal of the proceedings.

¶30

The parties to act on authenticate copy.

¶31

[ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶32

bsb/Jan. 14

Huru Begum Sharif Khan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Huru Begum Sharif Khan and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Syed Laddu Syed Kadu Vs Vinod Prakash Gudiwal and Another

Dagadabai Anna Jagadale Vs Prabhakar Manikrao Khadke and Others

Ravindra Bahanudasrao Ingole and Others Vs Shivajirao Shridharrao More and Others

Ramchandra Dattatrya Bhalerao. Vs Amulchand Keshavji Shaha.(L.Rs.)Santaben and Rasikla

Santosh Vaijnathrao Mundhe Vs Ramesh Uttamrao Mohalkar and Others

Janardhan Ramsingh Mahalpure and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others