BHAUJI BHAGWAN AWARI Vs. STATE MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23-1-1992 delivered by Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Nagpur in Ceiling Appeal Nos. 87/1990 to 91/1990. These ceiling appeals were filed by the present petitioners separately and in it the order impugned was one passed by sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura dated 8-10-1990. By this order dated 8-10-1990 learned sub-Divisional Officer declared the transfer of disputed land purchased by the petitioners from surplus holder as invalid and also cancelled the mutations which were effected due to these transfers. Necessary facts in this respect briefly stated are : the present respondent no. 2 Bhalchandrarao owned vast land at various places including the village of petitioners by name Charli. Petitioners No. 1 purchased the land ad-measuring 1. 80 hectare out of survey nos. 228/1 and 228/2 situated at Charli in Gat no. 400 from respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 8-9-1976. The petitioner no. 2 had purchased 1. 26 hectare from survey Np. 35 gat No. 159. Petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 purchased 1. 70 hectare of land from respondent No. 2 from out of survey No. 35 Gat No. 158, also by registered sale deed dated 27-8-1980. Petitioner No. 5 purchased 1. 80 hectares of land from survey nos. 228/1 and 228/2 from respondent No. 2 by registered sale deed dated 8-8-1976. Petitioners state that they are in possession of the respective lands purchased by them, since then.

(2.) IT is alleged that petitioners received a notice from Revenue Inspector that possession of these lands is to be taken by State Government on 31-10-1990. Petitioners thereafter made inquires and from the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, rajura they learnt that there was a Ceiling case No. 1 l/60-A (5)/63-64. They learnt that the lands purchased by them has been delimited as surplus by the Sub-Divisional officer and mutation entries in their name and sale deeds executed in their favour by respondent No. 2 had been cancelled by Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura by order dated 8-10-1990. Petitioners contend that their names were mutated in revenue records immediately after sale deed in their favour and they were not given any notice by the Sub- Divisional officer before passing this order.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by this order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura, the petitioners filed appeals before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal, Nagpur vide appeals no. 87/1990 to appeal No. 91/1990. All these appeals were heard together by learned Member and were dismissed by common order dated 23-1-1992. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has found that their appeals were not tenable as there were previous proceedings in ceiling case of respondent No. 2 and the land was delimited as surplus by order of Sub-Divisional Officer, rajura dated 24-9-1987 and 28-9-1987. The revenue Tribunal found that these orders was challenged in appeal before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal by respondent no. 2 that appeal was dismissed on 16-12-1988. The revenue Tribunal has held that its order of dismissal has become final and it cannot review that order. Petitioners contend that their names were appearing in 7-12 extract and the learned Maharashtra Revenue tribunal ought to have seen that they were not given any notice before taking any decision to delimit their land or before invalidating the sale deed in their favour.