Petitioners challenged a trial Court order rejecting their application to refer the legality of a Tahsildar's certificate under Section 43 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act to the competent authority. The High Court found the reasons unsustainable and quashed the order.
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.
2025:BHC-NAG:8153
1 wp 188.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Writ Petition No.188/2025 Smt. Sulochana and others V Madhukar and another
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders
Mr. P.A. Markandeywar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. S.M. Pande, Advocate for respondents.
CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : 18-08-2025.
Heard Mr. Markandeywar, learned Counsel for the
petitioners and Mr. Pande, learned Advocate for the respondents.
2.The petitioners have challenged order dated 29-08-2024
passed by the trial Court, rejecting the application to refer the issue
of legality and validity of a certificate under Section 43 of the
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,
1958 (for short, ‘the Act’) to the competent authority.
3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that during
the pendency of the civil suit in between the parties, bearing Special
Civil Suit No.1230/2011, when a certificate dated 10-09-2012 was
produced on record, the petitioners who are the defendants in the
said civil suit filed an application under Section 124 r/w Section 125
of the Act, by which it was prayed that the issue about validity and
legality of a certificate dated 10-09-2012 issued by the Tahsildar
under Section 43 of the Act be referred to the competent authority.
4.The said issue is reproduced below :-
2 wp 188.25.odt
“4. Whether plaintiffs prove that purchase/sell certificate
dated 10.09.2012 issued by Tahsildar under Section 43 of
the B.T. Act is void-ab-initio and nullity being issued without
following due procedure of law especially when there was no
proceeding for transfer of ownership ?”
5.On this application, the plaintiffs have given no
objection. Learned trial Court has passed order dated 29-08-2024
on this application and after giving references to various citations it
is observed that even though issue no.4 (referred above) has been
framed in the suit the Court does not have jurisdiction to decide that
issue. It is also observed that since the parties had knowledge about
the certificate from the year 2013 and they had opportunity to
challenge the said certificate and since the same was not subjected
to challenge, therefore the Court concluded that the issue in respect
of that certificate does not arise.
6.Having regard to the contentions canvassed and the
categorical observations of the trial Court that although the issue
no.4 is framed the civil Court is not having jurisdiction to decide the
issue and by considering the no objection given by the plaintiff to
the said application in my opinion, the reasons recorded by the trial
Court to reject the application are not appealing. In view of the
controversy involved about legality of the certificate dated
10-09-2012, it will be necessary to ascertain whether any
proceedings were in fact conducted before the Tahsildar, Nagpur,
3 wp 188.25.odt
which had issued the certificate dated 10-09-2012 under Section 43
of the Act and as such decision on that issue by the competent
authority is necessary.
7.In view of this, the impugned order is unsustainable in
law and it is liable to be quashed and set aside. Order dated
29-08-2024 passed by the trial Court on an application at Exhibit-82
in Special Civil Suit No.1230/2011 is quashed and set aside. The
application filed by the petitioners/defendants at Exhibit-82 is
allowed.
8.Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)
Deshmukh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court was right in rejecting the defendants' application to refer the validity of the Tahsildar's Section 43 certificate to the competent authority.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Sulochana and others
Madhukar
another (second respondent)
Prafulla S. Khubalkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court