GOVIND RANGANATH KALE Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL PUNE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the order of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Jamkhed, declaring him to be a surplus holder of 54 acres of land. His appeal was thrown out by the Tribunal on the short ground that it was incompetent by reason of being signed and filed by an unauthorised person in contravention of Section 44-B of the Ceiling Act. The petitioner had not filed his appeal in person, but it was filed on his behalf by his agent, the Power of Attorney holder Vitlial Kale. The petitioner is one Govind. The Tribunal held that though the provisions of Civil P. C. were applicable by virtue of Section 33, Sub-section (3) and confers those powers of a Civil Court in the Tribunal while deciding the appeals, Section 44-B does not permit the filing of an appeal by a power of Attorney except in the case of a disabled person. It is this decision which is challenged before me.

(2.) Now Section 44-B is in these terms: "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any law for the time being in force, no pleader shall be entitled to appear on behalf of any party in any proceedings under this Act before the Authorised Officer, the Tribunal, the Collector, the Commissioner, the State Government or the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal: Provided that, where a party is a minor of lunatic, his guardian may appear, and in the case of any other person under disability, hit authorised agent may appear". Section 44-B now numbered as 44-R (sic) provides that "No pleader shall be entitled to appear" on behalf of any party. The proviso to that section makes an exception in favour of a minor or lunatic in whose case his guardian may appear and only in the case of any other person under disability, his authorised agent may appear. Now the short question is whether filing of an appeal by an authorised agent, is appearing on behalf of a person?

(3.) Apart from the circumstance that the Tribunal in this case has taken an extremely technical view which also is not warranted, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, appearing for the respondent, fairly conceded that the order of the Tribunal should be set aside and the matter should be sent back to the Tribunal. It will be seen that the relevant provisions applicable are to be found under Order 3 of the Civil P. C. and in Section 33 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act providing for appeals. Section 3 does not say as to who is entitled to file an appeal. It merely says that an appeal against an order or award of the Collector shall lie to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It is, however, implicit and can be assumed that a person aggrieved by the order would be entitled to file an appeal against the order or award of the Collector to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Section 44-B (now 44-R) (sic) does not deal with the filing of appeals but deals with appearances of pleaders and authorised agents on behalf of parties. The question is whether the filing of this appeal by an authorised agent as in this case amounts to "appearing" on behalf of such a person.