LAWS(BOM)-2011-1-82

CHANDRAKANT RAGHUNATH PARAB Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On January 13, 2011
Chandrakant Raghunath Parab Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2. None appears on behalf of Respondent No. 3A to 3D though they are served. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai, who by his order 3rd September, 1990 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 29th April, 1981 and further gave a direction that an area of 2 Acres out of Survey No. 77 be restored to the Respondents herein.

(2.) Brief facts are as under-. The Petitioners are, admittedly, landlord of the entire of land-admeasure 4H, 271/2 Guntha, situated at village Chinchoti, out of Survey No. 77. Respondent No. 3 herein was a tenant in respect of the land admeasuring 2 Acres 51/2 Guntha. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") was initiated and order was passed in favor of Respondent No. 3, permitting him to purchase the land, admeasuring 2 Acres 51/2 Gunthas out of Survey No. 77. Pursuant to the said order, Respondent No. 3 paid the purchase price and the certificate under 2 32-M of the Act was issued in his favor. This order was challenged by the Petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal who by their order dated 17th September, 1970 was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar & ALT and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar. After the remand, the Tahsildar confirmed the order which was passed earlier in respect of area 2 Acres and 51/2 Gunthas and the proceedings in respect of the balance portion of the land; namely 4 Acres and 34 Gunthas was dropped. After a period of almost 9 years, the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division suo-moto initiated and revived the said proceedings and by its order dated 3rd September, 1990 set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed that the area of 2 Acres be handed over to the Respondent No. 3 herein.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submitted that, firstly, the impugned order was passed on 3-9-1990 after the lapse of 9 years, though Section 7 of the said Act clearly provides that the Commissioner could revive the proceedings within a period of three years. He, therefore, submitted that said order was liable to be quashed and set aside on this ground alone. Secondly, it is submitted that the land in question did not belong to Respondent No. 3 and the impugned order has been passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974. He submitted that the land did not belong to tribal since it belong to the Petitioners who were the landlord and therefore, this order should not have been passed; and lastly, he submitted that since the order was passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, there is no question of again reviving the said proceedings soumotu by the Additional Commissioner.