text stringlengths 5 5.67k |
|---|
It has been pleaded by the appellant that Survey No.118/1 and 118/2 are one and the same thing ARG |
The facts in brief,as narrated in the impugned order,are that Survey Nos.118,328 and 351 of Lonavala were originally owned by one Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu FAC |
The said Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu migrated to Pakistan and while going to Pakistan,he sold his property to one Smt FAC |
Hajrabi Haji Yusuf on 4.6.1949.However,this transaction was cancelled by the Collector and Custodian of Evacuee Property on 17.4.1949 as per Section 8(i) of the Evacuee Properties Act and these lands were accordingly entered as Evacuee Property by the Tahsildar,Maval on 26.10.1949.It appears that these survey numbers w... |
It appears that in CTS No.129,130-A,130-B and 133,apart from vacant land there is a bungalow No.52-Habib Villa FAC |
It appears that the Regional Settlement Commissioner placed this property for auction through Government Auctioner and one Gulabbai Desaipurchased the said property in auction for a consideration of Rs.16,750/-on 17.5.1956 and,accordingly,sale certificate was issued by the Regional Settlement Commissioner,Bombay on beh... |
In the said sale certificate the C.T.S.No 129,130-A,130-B and 133 of Village Lonavala were mentioned FAC |
The area of this CTS Nos.were as under FAC |
On the basis of the said sale certificate the mutation Entry No.1836 was effected in the village record in favour of Gulabai Desai,and thereby her name was entered in Survey Nos.118/1B and 328 of village Lonavala to the extent of 29.30 Ares and 70 Ares respectively FAC |
Thereafter,Gulabai sold CTS No.133 admeasuring 33 Gunthas on 24.4.1977 to Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu FAC |
The said Gulabai also gifted her remaining area from this Survey numbers to her grandson Anil Gajanan Desai on 15.1.1979,who in turn has sold his properties to Respondent no.2 FAC |
Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani in the year 1980 FAC |
The Survey Nos.118/2 and 351,being Evacuee Properties,were allotted to the Appellant in the year 1956.Later on,it was found that the Appellant is in possession of more area and,therefore,the said order was modified on 6.5.1982 and excess area was granted to the Appellant on payment of Rs.31,360/-,which Appellant had pa... |
In the impugned order,Division Bench made it clear that since the dispute between the parties was in respect of the area,as to what has been purchased in auction sale by Gulabai Desai and what is the area allotted to the Appellant by the orders of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties,the Appe... |
However,in the facts of the conflicting claims,the Appellant made grievance to the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties in respect of the Mutation made in favour of the Respondent Gulabai and other Respondents and,therefore,by order dated 18.9.1984 the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of... |
In view of these directions,the Sub-Divisional Officer,Haveli,Sub Division,Pune,initiated proceeding RTS Revision 14 of 1984 and by order dated 30.7.1985 cancelled the mutation Entry No.1836 which comprises land admeasuring 7897 sq.yards and directed necessary corrections in the record as per the observations made in t... |
It appears that the said order was taken in appeal by the respondent and the matter was remanded to the Sub Divisional Officer FAC |
After remand,the Sub Divisional Officer,conducted inquiry and again passed an order on 29.10.1987 and confirmed the earlier order FAC |
Therefore,the RTS Appeal No.128 of 1987 was preferred before the Collector,which was disposed off by the Additional Collector on 13.7.1993.By the said order,the Order of the third Sub-Divisional Officer was maintained FAC |
However,further inquiry as directed by the SDO was to be conducted FAC |
Since the mutation Entry No.1836 was cancelled by above order,the Talathi gave effect to these orders and effected the mutation Entry No.2176 and showed the disputed properties in the name of the Collector and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties FAC |
The directions were issued by the Collector to the Tahsildar to place the appellant in possession of the property as per the orders of the Deputy Collector and the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties FAC |
However,instead of giving effect to those orders,it appears that the Revenue Officers at Tahsil level effected two mutations,viz,Mutation No.2377 and 2394.By mutation entry No.2377 the name of respondent was again mutated in the record and by the mutation Entry No.2394 the name of Genu Kadu was mutated in the record FA... |
Since the Collector noticed on complaint that the orders of the Collector has been bypassed or surpassed by the Subordinate Revenue Officers,the Collector by order dated 12.7.1999 directed the SDO to take these mutations namely mutation Entry No.2377 and 2394 in revision and therefore the Sub-Divisional Officer,Maval D... |
Being aggrieved by the order passed in the said revision,Respondent No.2 Lalwani preferred RTS Appeal No.81 of 2000 and the Respondent No.3 Genu Kadu preferred RTS Appeal No.114 of 2000.Both FAC |
these RTS Appeals were heard by the Additional Collector,Pune and by order dated 28.5.2001 the Addl FAC |
Collector,Pune dismissed the said appeals and confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer,Maval FAC |
Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Collector,Respondent No.2 preferred RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 under Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 before the Additional Commissioner,Pune Division,Pune FAC |
The said revision was decided by the Additional Commissioner,Pune by order dated 22.11.2001 and the said revision was dismissed FAC |
Respondent No.2 challenged this order of the Additional Commissioner by filing the proceeding RTS 3402/Pra.kra.309/L-6 by way of second revision before the Revenue Minister for State and the said proceeding was decided by the Minister for State on 18.10.2002.The Revenue Minister allowed the said proceeding and set asid... |
Appellant challenged the order dated 19.10.2002 passed by the Minister by filing a writ petition,which was dismissed by learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court FAC |
Thereafter,the appellant filed Letters Patent Appeal,which was also dismissed by the Division Bench holding that when the State Minister for Revenue entertained the matter,he was possessed of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and,therefore,the order passed by him under the said authori... |
The Division Bench observed thus RLC |
We record our finding RLC |
that under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code more than one revision is possible RLC |
Now coming to the facts of the present case,the mutation Entry No.1836 was in fact certified RLC |
However,the Sub-Divisional Officer has taken the said mutation in revision in RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 and has set aside the mutation by order dated 30.7.1985.There was appeal as against that order which was remanded RLC |
It was again decided by the Sub Divisional Officer on 29.10.1987 and the said mutation was set aside RLC |
There was RTS Appeal No.128 of 1987 which was decided on 13.7.1993.In view of these orders the mutation entry No.1836 was cancelled and Mutation Entry No.2176 was effected whereby the name of the Collector and the Deputy Collector of the Evacuee Property was entered into 7 X 12 extracts RLC |
It is further found that when the orders of the Collector directing to put the petitioner into possession were not obeyed by the subordinate Revenue Officers and the Revenue Officers effected the mutation entry No.2377 in favour of the Respondent Nos.3 Gulabai Desai and Mutation Entry No.2394 in favour of the Responden... |
They were decided on 28.5.2001.As against that the RTS Revision No.330 of 2001 was preferred RLC |
The same was dismissed RLC |
As against that the RTS proceeding bearing No.3402 /Pra RLC |
Kra.309/L-6 was preferred before the Minister for State RLC |
All these proceedings will show that twice the Sub-Divisional Officer has exercised the revisional power under Section 257 at the directions of the Collector,namely the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 and RTS Revision No.12 of 1999.It will further reveal that the appeals as against the RTS Revision No.14 of 1984 was preferr... |
However,said revision RTS 330 of 2001 is tenable since the appeals as provided under Section 247 and 249 intervene in between the revisional orders passed by the Sub-Divisional officer and the Commissioner RLC |
Thus,in short,we find that the scheme under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is quite different scheme and it permits more than one revision RLC |
Thus,viewed from any angle,we find that the State Minister for Revenue when he entertained the matter,State Minister for revenue was possessed of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and therefore the order passed by him under the said authority is within his jurisdiction,power and compet... |
Hence,the present appeal by special leave FAC |
Mr ARG |
Huzefa Ahmadi,learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant,mainly attacked the revisional power exercised by the Minister concerned in purported exercise of jurisdiction under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ARG |
In the alternative,learned Senior counsel submitted that even if it were to be admitted without prejudice that second revision is maintainable,the Minister being the revisional authority should not have interfered with the findings recorded by all the six Revenue Authorities ARG |
Referring the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Sambappa vs ARG |
State of Maharashtra [(2002) SCC on line,Bombay 1222],learned counsel submitted that when the Sub-Divisional Officer,Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner had concurrently recorded finding in favour of the appellant by observing that the revenue record is not in consonance with the factual aspect and they ha... |
Section 257 makes it clear that a revisional authority has to consider only the legality and propriety of the decision ARG |
Learned counsel referring the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure tried to impress us that when the power of revision is given to the District Judge,then the High Court cannot entertain second revision petition under Section 115 of the Code ARG |
Learned counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Kerala vs ARG |
K.M.Charia Abdulla & Co.,AIR 1965 ARG |
SC 1585 1964 Indlaw SC 353 and Hari Shankar vs ARG |
Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhury,AIR 1963 SC 698 1961 Indlaw SC 157 ARG |
Ahmadi,learned senior counsel further submitted that a request was made to the High Court not to enter into the merit of the case,and to confine itself to the question whether a second revision was at all maintainable,in the light of the ratio in Harishankar's case 1961 ARG |
Indlaw SC 157 (supra),(1962) Suppl.(1) SCR 933 ARG |
1961 Indlaw SC 157,Hiralal Kapur vs ARG |
Prabhu Choudhury,(1988) 2 SCC 172 1988 Indlaw SC 342 and Helper Girdharbhai vs ARG |
Saiyed Mohmad Mirasaheb Kadri and others,(1987) 3 SCC 538 1987 Indlaw SC 28281.Learned counsel also drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Dharampal vs ARG |
Ramshri,(1993) 1 SCC 435 1993 Indlaw SC 1325 where this Court held ARG |
that a second revision to the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr ARG |
P.C.was not permitted ARG |
Lastly,Mr ARG |
Ahmadi submitted that the second revision would not lie under Section 257 of the Revenue Code since Section 259 of the Code provides an opportunity to the State Government to only correct any "Final Order" while exercising power under the provisions of Section 257 i.e.with regard to its legality and propriety ARG |
Ravindra Srivastava,learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State,at the very outset submitted that the appellant conceded before the High Court not to decide the merit of the case ARG |
The only point raised before the High Court was with regard to the maintainability of second revision before the State Government under Section 257 of the Revenue Code ARG |
Learned counsel submitted that Section 257 expressly confers power of revision on the State Government which power is coupled with power of control and superintendence ARG |
Learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner or the Additional Commissioner is not equal in a rank but subordinate to the State Government ARG |
Learned counsel submitted that the State Government is the supreme revenue authority and existence of more than one appeal or revision to an aggrieved party is not per se abhorrent to any legal principle; depends upon the Statute ARG |
Srivastava then contended that the High Court correctly analysed and appreciated the scheme of the Code vis a vis judicial review in revenue matters ARG |
Learned counsel put heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Ishwar Singh vs ARG |
State of Rajasthan and others,(2005 PRE |
2 SCC 334 2005 Indlaw SC 6 for the proposition that there can be a second revision under the same provision of the Statute ARG |
The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether a second revision under Section 257 is maintainable and that whether the State Government exceeds its jurisdiction in entertaining the second revision Ratio |
Before we proceed to decide the aforesaid question,we would like to refer the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966 STA |
Section 2(31) defines the Revenue Officer as under:- "2 (31)" revenue officer" means every officer of any rank whatsoever appointed under any of the provisions of this Code,and employed in or about the business of the land revenue or of the surveys,assessment,accounts,or records connected therewith STA |
Chapter II deals with the Revenue Officers,their powers and duties STA |
Sections 5,6 and 7 reads as under:- "5.Chief Controlling authority in revenue matters STA |
The chief controlling authority in all matters connected with the land revenue in his division shall vest in the Commissioner,subject to the superintendence,direction and control of the State Government STA |
6.Revenue Officers in division STA |
The State Government shall appoint a Commissioner of each division; and may appoint in a division an Additional Commissioner and so many Assistant Commissioners as may be expedient,to assist the Commissioner: Provided that,nothing in this section shall preclude the appointment of the same officer as Commissioner for tw... |
7.Revenue officers in district.(1)The State Government shall appoint a Collector for each district (including the City of Bombay who shall be in charge of the revenue administration there of; and a Tahsildar for each taluka who shall be the chief officer entrusted with the local revenue administration of a taluka STA |
The State Government may appoint one or more Additional Collectors and in each district (including the City of Bombay and so many Assistant Collectors and Deputy Collectors (with such designations such as "First","Second",Super numerary",etc STA |
Assistants as may be expressed in the order of their appointment),one or more Naib-Tahsildars in a taluka,and one or more Additional Tahsidars or Naib-Tahsildars therein and such other persons (having such designations) to assist the revenue officers as it may deem expedient STA |
3) Subject to the general orders of the State Government,the Collector may place any Assistant or Deputy Collector in charge of one more sub-divisions of a district,or may himself retain charge thereof STA |
Such Assistant or Deputy Collector may also be called a Sub-Divisional Officer STA |
The Collector may appoint to each district as many persons as he thinks fit to be Circle Officers and Circle Inspectors to be in charge of a Circle,and one or more Talathis for a saza,and one or more Kotwals or other village servants for each village or group of villages,as he may deem fit STA |
Section 11 of the Code is worth to be quoted herein STA |
below:- "11.Subordination of officers STA |
1) All revenue officers shall be subordinate to the State Government STA |
2) Unless the State Government directs otherwise,all revenue officers in a division shall be subordinate to the Commissioner,and all revenue Officers 2[in a district (including the City of Bombay)] shall be subordinate to the Collector STA |
3)Unless the State Government directs otherwise,all other Revenue Officers Including survey officers shall be subordinated,the one to the other,in such order as the State Government may direct STA |
Sections 13 and 14 deal with the powers and duties of all Revenue Officers STA |
From reading of the aforesaid provisions,it is manifest that the State Government makes appointment of the Revenue Officers including the Commissioner and the Chief Controlling Authorities in the revenue matters Ratio |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.