SHIRISH GOVIND GANGAKHEDKAR Vs. MARUTI NARAYAN GAIKWAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated October 18, 1999, in Revision No. MRT-P-I-14/94 (B-20/94), Pune.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the respondents 1 to 3 were the original owners of two lands admeasuring 3-H, 59-R out of Survey No. 42 and 0-H, 99-R out of Survey No. 40/2, situate at village Wadavali, Taluka: Maval, District Pune. Respondents 1 to 3 became owners of the said lands after having purchased the same under the provisions of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter for the sake of brevity, in short referred to as "the Act", ). In other words, the said respondents 1 to 3 were tenants in the said lands and became deemed purchasers by operation of law. Some time on 18th January, 1992, the said respondents 1 to 3 made application under section 43 of the Act to permit them to transfer the said two lands to the petitioner herein. That application was decided by the S. D. O. on January 24, 1992, granting permission to the said respondents 1 to 3, as prayed for on certain conditions. One of the condition relevant for deciding the present case is that the said transaction between the said respondents 1 to 3 and petitioner was to be completed within three months from the date of granting permission and upon payment of Najrana amount to the Government, failing which the permission would stand cancelled and action for resumption of land under section 84-C of the Act was to be taken. There are other conditions in the said order, however, it is not necessary to advert to those conditions herein. As per the said order the petitioner as well as respondents 1 to 3 were under obligation to conclude the said transaction within three months from the date of order, i. e. on or before 24th April, 1992. However, admittedly, that transaction was not concluded between them. Whereas, some time on March 1, 1992 respondents 1 to 3 made application to the S. D. O. that they have no objection for granting extension of time for payment and for execution of the sale deed as they intend to dispose of the property to the petitioner herein. Soon thereafter on March 5, 1992, the respondents 1 to 3 made another application to the S. D. O. for permission under section 43 of the Act to transfer the land bearing Survey No. 42 only admeasuring 3-H, 59-R in favour of the respondents 4 and 5 herein. Undoubtedly, this application was filed while the application for extension of time was pending with the S. D. O. filed on March 1, 1992; coupled with the fact that the time provided for in the order dated January 24, 1992 was still subsisting till April 24, 1992. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the said transaction in respect the aforestated two lands was not completed between respondents 1 to 3 and petitioner herein, before April 24, 1992. The order passed by the S. D. O. dated January 24, 1992 makes it very clear that on non-compliance of any of the conditions, which includes non-completion of the said transaction within three months therefrom would automatically result into cancellation of the said order. The other relevant dates that need to be taken note of is that the second application preferred by respondents 1 to 3 dated, March 5, 1992, purported to be under section 43 of the Act, seeking permission to transfer the land bearing Survey No. 42 only in favour of the respondents 4 and 5, came to be allowed by the S. D. O. on April 30, 1992 on similar conditions which are noted in the earlier order dated 24th January, 1992. Pursuant to this order, respondents 4 and 5 paid the Najrana amount to the State Exchequer and on May 13, 1992 executed sale-deed with respondents 1 to 3 in respect of land bearing Survey No. 42, admeasuring 3-H, 59-R and also obtained possession of the said land with effect from the said date. The sale deed between the respondents inter se came to be registered at Registration No. 3029 with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, Haveli, Pune. However, much thereafter on July 8, 1992 respondents 1 to 3 are stated to have executed another sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of the same land bearing Survey No. 42. This transaction was effected inspite of the registered sale-deed already executed in favour of respondents 4 and 5 on 13th May, 1992; besides, there was no subsisting permission in favour of respondents 1 to 3 to transfer the said land in favour of the petitioner herein. In as much as, the permission which was granted on January 24, 1992 had already lapsed on completion of three months therefrom. In one sense, the sale-deed executed between respondents 1 to 3 and petitioner is not in confirmity with the requirements of section 43 of the Act. It is relevant to note that an enquiry was held in which statements of owners respondents 1 to 3 came to be recorded wherein it is stated that they have no objection for granting extension of time to complete the transaction with the petitioner only in respect of land Survey No. 40/2 admeasuring 0-H, 99-R but pressed that permission under section 43 of the Act be granted to transfer the land bearing Survey No. 42, admeasuring 3-H, 59-R in favour of respondents 4 and 5. It is not necessary to burden this judgment with all other events and various proceedings between the parties before different forums, which details are set out in extenso in the reply-affidavit filed by respondents 4 and 5 before this Court. Suffice it to mention that the petitioner after execution of the sale-deed on July 8, 1992 kept on making application to S. D. O. for extension of time. Besides, pursuant to the grievance made by the petitioner by written application to the S. D. O. , the S. D. O. passed order on August 11, 1993 recalling the permission granted in respect of the transaction to be completed between respondents 1 to 3 and respondents 4 and 5 inter se in terms of order dated April 30, 1992. This decision of the S. D. O. records that second permission application was erroneously entertained by his office. Against the said decision, respondents 4 and 5 filed above numbered revision before the M. R. T. Pune. The Tribunal, on the other hand, was pleased to set aside the order passed by the S. D. O. dated August 11, 1993. Though various contentions have been considered by the Tribunal, in substance, the Tribunal has held that the second application filed by the owners for permission under section 43 to transfer the land bearing Survey No. 42 only admeasuring 3-H, 59-R in favour respondents 4 and 5 was properly filed. The Tribunal further held that when the permission was granted on that application on April 30, 1992 at that point of time there was no valid subsisting permission in respect of the said land in favour of any other person. The Tribunal has further held that there is no provision in the Act or the Rules which would authorise the S. D. O. to set aside or cancel the permission once granted. It is in this backdrop, the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the order passed by the S. D. O. dated 11th August, 1993. It is this decision which is challenged by way of this writ petition.

(3.) IN all four contentions have been raised by way of this writ petition and which have been canvassed across the bar at the time of hearing. I shall make reference to those contentions a little later. It is relevant to note that this writ petition was admitted by this Court on September 13, 2000 and this Court granted order of status-quo to continue till the disposal of the petition. It appears that the respondents 4 and 5 who were affected by the order of status quo moved an application before this Court for vacating that order and alternatively for early hearing of the writ petition. However, that Civil Application bearing No. 8087/2000 came to be rejected on November 22, 2000, essentially on the ground that there was no changed circumstance after the writ petition was admitted. It appears that thereafter respondents 4 and 5 filed another Civil Application bearing C. A. No. 1288/2001 for more or less similar reliefs. However, even that application came to be rejected on August 8, 2001 on the ground that there are many old matters with more urgency. This Court, however, gave liberty to the said respondents 4 and 5 to apply for early hearing of the petition on expiry of one year. Pursuant to that liberty, fresh application has been filed before this Court, being Civil Application No. 2120 of 2002, pointing out that several incorrect and misleading statements have been made in the writ petition; that relevant materials have been deliberately suppressed; and that it is on that basis the writ petition filed by the petitioner came to be entertained. Accordingly, respondents 4 and 5 have prayed by way of this application to dismiss the writ petition with compensatory costs. It is further prayed that the hearing of the writ petition be expedited and that the order of status quo granted earlier be vacated. This application was circulated on October 14, 2002 for order. On considering the oral arguments advanced on that day, I indicated to the Counsel appearing for the parties that the appropriate course will be to hear the application along with the writ petition finally. Counsel appearing for both the parties agreed to argue the writ petition for final hearing on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, arguments in this writ petition were heard finally on October 16, 2002 and judgment was reserved. The parties were given liberty to file written submissions. Pursuant to that liberty, written submissions have been filed which are already taken on record.