The writ petitioner challenged a Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order found to be passed ex parte and unsustainable vis-a-vis a concurrent Civil Court judgment. The High Court allowed the writ, quashing the Tribunal order.
Quashed and set aside the order dated 17-2-97 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune in case no. MRT N.S.VIII.6/92.
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.
209 A.wp.3857.1997.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT ( P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3857 OF 1997
Baban Dattu Bankar and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus
Shantabai Gangaram Ghanwat .. Respondent
� Mr. Rupesh R. Lanjekar for Petitioner
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2023
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Lanjekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
2. On 15.12.2022 this Court has passed the following order:-
“ 1. Heard Mr. Lanjekar, learned Advocate for Petitioner. Petition is admitted. Called out for final hearing on the final hearing Board.
Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 04.09.2023. 1 of 4
209 A.wp.3857.1997.doc
3. Despite being served pursuant to the last order none appears for the Respondent today.
4. Pursuant to the last order an attempt to serve the Respondent has been made by the Petitioner and the packet has been returned back by the postal authority by the remark ‘Addressee moved’. Advocate Mr. Sonwalkar who has filed the Vakilpatra in year 1997 is 75 years old and has stopped practice. The aforementioned details are mentioned in the Affidavit of Service dated 19.01.2023 and it is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. Writ Petition can no longer be further protracted. It is taken up for hearing.
5. On 15.12.2022 it is seen that the learned Trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.115 of 1978 has passed the Order 30.09.1994 holding that the Respondent is not an Agriculturist which has been noted in the order dated 15.12.2022. Decision on Issue No.9 is also placed on
Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 04.09.2023. 2 of 4
209 A.wp.3857.1997.doc
record in the present Writ Petition at Page No.40 of the Writ Petition.
6. Perusal of the judgment and order dated 17.02.1997 passed in
Revision proceedings under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1949 would reveal that the said order has been passed Ex parte without hearing the Petition.
7. Admittedly, the order of the Civil Court is not taken into consideration. The order passed by the learned Civil Court dated 30.09.1994 and if the said order would have been placed before the learned Tribunal the decision would have been to the contrary.
8. Considering that the learned Trial Court has already decided the issue of the Respondent - Smt. Shantabai Gangaram Ghanwat not being an Agriculturist in substantive Civil Court proceedings, the impugned order dated 17.02.1997 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowing the Revision of the Respondent is not sustainable in law. The impugned order dated 17.02.1997 thus deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Writ Petition therefore stands allowed in terms of prayer clause (b) which reads thus.:-
“b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the case and after examining the legality and propriety thereof may please quash and set aside the order dated 17-2-97 passed by the Designated Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune, in case No. MRT .N.S.VIII.6/92 (TNC.B.118/92)”.
Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 04.09.2023. 3 of 4
209 A.wp.3857.1997.doc
10. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed by HARSHADA HARSHADA HANUMANT HANUMANT SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2023.09.04 16:14:40 +0530
Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 04.09.2023. 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal order allowing revision on status of agriculturist is sustainable when the Civil Court has already decided the Respondent is not an agriculturist.
Whether it is open to the Revenue Tribunal to pass an order ex parte regarding the entitlement benefits without hearing the Impugned order citation
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Baban Dattu Bankar and Ors.
Shantabai Gangaram Ghanwat
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
