MANISH MANOHAR BANG Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.

(2.) Petitioners claim that they are purchasers of suit property survey number 20, area 6.41 HR situated at mouza Pipla under registered sale deed dated 31.10.2005. Land was sold out by respondent no. 14 Public Trust after obtaining due permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 to respondents no. 7 to 13. Petitioners, in turn, purchased the suit land from respondents no. 7 to 13. It is alleged that one Rodba Ramchandra Mali, owner of adjacent land, manipulated revenue record and claimed to be tenant over the suit field. There were proceedings before the Revenue Authorities and outcome thereof was that, name of Rodba Ramchandra Mali as a tenant came to be deleted. After deletion of his name, Trustees of respondent no. 14 entered into two agreements for sale with Rodba. However, before execution of sale deed, Rodba Mali died and his legal heirs also did not obtain sale deed. Moreover, though mandatory, no permission from the Charity Commissioner was obtained by the Trust to sell the suit land in favour of Rodba Mali. Manohar son of Rodba Mali tampered revenue record and managed to enter his name in revenue record. That entry was challenged by the Trust and the Trust succeeded to get the name of Manohar deleted. That entry has attained finality because nobody challenged the same. Thereafter respondent no. 14 Trust obtained permission from the Joint Charity Commissioner to sell the land; offers were invited by tender notice; offer of respondents no. 7 to 13 was accepted and land was sold to them and from them, petitioners purchased the suit land, as aforesaid.

(3.) In view of the clarification and observation made in order dated 1st October 2013 by this Court in WP No. 3608 of 2011, neither of the parties have pointed out to me that any steps for conferral of ownership, tenancy have been taken. However, petitioners filed application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal seeking review of its judgment and order dated 11.4.2011. Since delay was caused in filing review application, petitioners filed application for condonation of delay.