GITABAI Vs. SAYYED MAINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 04.10.1995 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in Case No.1993-REV-R-110. The petitioner has prayed to quash and set aside the said order passed by the Additional Commissioner by confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar Udgir, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Latur and Additional Collector, Latur in respect of sanctioned of Mutation Entry No.08 regarding occupancy rights of the petitioner in respect of suit lands.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner is contrary to law and not sustainable on the strength of material on record. Learned counsel submits that the Additional Commissioner has committed grave error in holding that the order of Tahsildar, Udgir dated 31.08.1961, vide Exhibit-B, was without jurisdiction. Learned counsel submits that as per legal position, as it stood with the Government of Maharashtra, Revenue Department, Circular No.HIA-1059-VI-L, Sachivalaya, Bombay, Bombay dated 09.07.1960, the powers of the Collector under Section 2-A (1) (vi), of the Act of 1954 were delegated to the Tahsildar and that is why the said order granting occupancy rights of the suit lands to the petitioner could not have been held as nullity and void ab initio by the learned Additional Commissioner. Learned counsel submits that the order dated 31.08.1961 in the matter of occupancy rights of suit lands bestowed on the petitioner had become final and conclusive in absence of any action taken for challenging the same by original Inamdar Sayyed Nuruddin or his son Sayyed Mainuddin (respondent no.1 herein) till date. Learned counsel submits that the Additional Commissioner has also committed an illegality in holding that no enquiry has been conducted by the Tahsildar, Udgir, while granting occupancy rights in respect of the suit lands to the petitioner vide order dated 31.08.1961. Learned counsel submits that the learned Additional Commissioner has committed an error in holding that the possession of the petitioner over the suit lands is not lawful on the ground that he was not a lawful tenant and his possession was also not legal. These findings are perverse and contrary to the record and the legal position as well. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in lawful possession of suit lands as a permanent tenant of Inamdar Sayyed Nuruddin since prior to 1950 till date with the grant of 'Protected Tenancy Certificate' so also grant of occupancy rights to him on 31.08.1961.