SAMBHAJI BALOJI SOLANKAR Vs. MAMLATDAR OF BARAMATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was given survey Nos. 167 and 163 which were formerly unoccupied Government waste lands for cultivation as a tenant from the year 1943 on an annual tenancy. He then applied for a 'sanad' as an occupant. Rule 37, Bombay Land Revenue Code Rules provides that any unoccupied survey number not assigned for any special purpose, may, at the Collector's discretion, be granted for agricultural purposes to such person as the Collector deems fit, either upon payment of a price fixed by the Collector, or without charge, or may be put up to public auction and sold subject to his confirmation to the highest bidder, and Sub-clause (4) provides that when the land is granted on impartible tenure, an agreement in Form F(1), and, when it is also granted on inalienable tenure, an agreement in Form I(1), shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant. In this case the land was granted on impartible tenure to the petitioner and an agreement in Form F(1) was signed by the petitioner and this agreement was accepted on behalf of the Government by the District Deputy Collector. Therefore, there was a complete and concluded contract between the Government and the petitioner which made the petitioner an occupant within the meaning of the Land Revenue Code, and the rights of the occupant are governed by section 68 of the Land Revenue Code. Section 68 provides that

(2.) Now, it appears that one Govindrao Pataloji Thite applied to the Mamlatdar that the lease of these lands should be given to him instead of the petitioner. Having heard of this the petitioner wrote a letter on 18-11-1951, to the Revenue Secretary, Revenue Department, stating that he had been given the 'sanad' and no action should be taken without deciding the merits as to the application of Thite after a full and impartial inquiry. Somehow the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Revenue Department, looked upon this letter as an a_pplication for a grant of a lease and the petitioner was informed on 19-1- 1952, that his request "for the grant of survey Nos. 167 and 168 could not be granted as he was already in possession of land sufficient for the maintenance of his family, and on 15-2-1952, the Mamlatdar issued a notice upon the petitioner to hand over to him possession of these survey Nos. 167 and 168, and it is this order which is being challenged by the petitioner, and the contention of the petitioner is that he is being deprived of his property otherwise than by due process of law.

(3.) Now, in their affidavits the case made cut by the State of Bombay is that the petitioner obtained the 'sanad' on false representations and the false representations were, first, that he had spent a sum of Rs. 15,000 in making improvements upon the lands and according to the State of Bombay it was found that this was a gross Overstatement. The second misrepresentation on which the State relies is that it was represented to the Government that the petitioner did not own any large area of agricultural land whereas in fact according to the State he owned 63 acres of agricultural land and he also cultivated 70 acres of land as a tenant of some other landlord, and the case of the State of Bombay is that this agreement would never have been entered into but for the misrepresentations made by the petitioner and the case of the State of Bombay further is that Government have revised the order made by the Deputy Collector under section 211, Land Revenue Code. On this two questions arise. One is whether Government had power to set aside or cancel an agreement entered into between the Government and a subject. The powers of the Government under section 211 are revisional and they are undoubtedly very wide powers. Power is given under this section to the State Government and any revenue officer to call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate revenue officer for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed, and as to the regularity of the proceeding of such officer. Therefore, to the extent that an order is passed by any revenue officer, that order can be revised by his superior and the order can be set aside. But the question is whether when an order has resulted in a solemn agreement being entered into between the Government and the subject it is open to the State Government under section 211 to set aside or cancel that agreement. If nothing more had been done than the passing of an order by the Deputy Collector that an agreement should be entered into between the State Government and the petitioner, undoubtedly such an order could have been revised under section 211. But when pursuant to the order an agreement has been entered into and certain rights have been created in favour of the petitioner, the question is whether by its revisional powers the Government can set aside an agreement entered into under the circumstances which we have referred to.