Challenged revenue review orders where title issues were sub judice in a civil suit. Court held petition not maintainable as revenue authorities cannot determine title. Order disposed.
Present writ petition disposed.
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.
skc
59-WP-5741-13
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 5741 OF 2013
Jaya Jayantilal Shah .. Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Madhav Jamdar for Petitioner. Ms M. S. Bane – AGP for State – Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE: 15 NOVEMBER 2016
P.C :
1] The challenge in this petition is to the orders dated 3 December 1988 and 21 June 1991 made by the Minister (Revenue) in the purported exercise of review jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
2] Now it transpires that as against the impugned order dated 3 December 1988, the petitioner had already instituted writ petition no. 3531 of 1989. The same was disposed of on 6 February 1990. Paragraph 3, which is the operative portion, reads thus :
1/3
skc
59-WP-5741-13
commenced for entering the names of the parties in the revenue record. The parties would not rely upon these findings in the suit which is filed or which may be filed by either of the parties hereafter for determining the title.”
3] In view of the aforesaid, obviously, no further petition can be said to be maintainable in order to question the order dated 3 December 1988.
4] Mr. Jamdar, learned counsel for the petitioner however points out that the Minister (Revenue) by order dated 21 June 1991 has purported to review the order dated 3 December 1988. He submits that under Section 258 (5) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, there is a specific bar to exercise review jurisdiction, against the order made in the exercise of review jurisdiction in the first instance. He therefore submits that the order dated 21 June 1991, to the extent, it purports to declare the respondent no. 5 society as the owner of the suit property, is without jurisdiction.
5] In view of the order made by this court in writ petition no. 3531 of 1989, there is no case made out to entertain present petition. However, admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the parties. It is settled position in law that the revenue authorities are not competent to determine or decide title of the parties. Issues of tittle will obviously be decided in the pending civil suit. Therefore,
2/3
skc
59-WP-5741-13
none of the observations either in the orders dated 3 December 1988 or 21 June 1991, can come in the way of either of the parties, when it comes to the civil court deciding the issues of title.
7] All concerned to act on basis of authenticated copy of this order.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Chandka
3/3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a revenue order is maintainable when an earlier writ petition was disposed of on the pendency of a civil suit regarding title.
Whether a second revenue order purportedly reviewing the first order is barred under Section 258(5) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code where the issue of title isPending in a civil court.
Whether observations in revenue orders can interfere with the determination of title by a civil court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jaya Jayantilal Shah
The State of Maharashtra
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
