GULAB LAHANU DORGE Vs. NAMDEO RAMKRISHNA KATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties.

(2.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father had entered into sale transaction of the suit land for Rs. 50,000/ in contravention of the provisions of s. 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short, the Tenancy Act ). He contended that, therefore the petitioner, after the death of his father instituted an application before the Naib Tahsildar for declaring the sale deed as void. He contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer, by his order dated 24. 2. 1999 held against the petitioner and rejected the said applica- tion. The petitioner being aggrieved, went in appeal before the Additional Collector and the Additional Collector recorded his findings in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 27. 8. 2000 and declared the sale transaction as void by virtue of a. 57 of the Tenancy Act. He contended that the respondent No. 1. who is vendee, had preferred revision before the Divi sional Commissioner and the revision came to be allowed and the findings of the Additional Collector were reversed by the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner on 24. 12. 2001. He further contended that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner cannot be sustained in law as much as the order of the Additional Collector was perfectly justified in declaring the sale transaction as invalid in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 contended that the additional Collector had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the petitioner ought to have preferred appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal (M. R. T. ). He further contended that necessary sanction is to be accorded from the Collector for the transaction as per s. 57 of the Tenancy act and the Sub-Divisional Officer exercises the powers of the Collector and hence the appeal before the Collector was not maintainable and as such the said order was without jurisdiction.