SAYYAD SAKHAVATALI ABBASALI Vs. MEMBER MAHARASHTRA REV TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India is to the order dated 30/ 3/2005 passed by respondent No. 1 Divisional commissioner, Amravati dismissing the revision filed by present petitioner. At the time of hearing on admission, contesting parties have agreed to get the writ petition decided finally at admission stage itself. Accordingly, the parties have filed their respective Written notes of arguments along with xerox copies of relevant citations. I have heard Advocate Shri. A. S. Kilor for petitioner and Advocate Shri. R. L. Khapre for Respondent No. 2 and 3. Learned AGP appeared for respondent Nos. l, 4 and 5,

(2.) The facts involved in the matter can be briefly stated thus. The property in dispute is survey No. 53 ad measuring 36 acres and 18 gunthas of village Chithoda Jahagir, Tq. Khamgon, District Buldhana and it is belonging to respondent No. 2 -a Public Trust. It is the contention of present petitioner that said property was in his possession along with his four other family members in capacity of tenant and Public Trust used to collect rent from him. The respondent No. 2 Public Trust is alleged to have agreed to sell said land to present petitioner and his 4 family members. An application was also moved before Chanty commissioner seeking permission to sale that property but that permission was refused and petitioner with his family members continued to cultivate the field-property as tenant. Petitioner contends that on 17/6/1996, respondent No. 2 Public Trust fabricated the document of surrender showing that the petitioner and others have voluntarily given up the tenancy rights in its favour. The Public Trust contended that petitioner also gave possession with receipt therefor and the document of surrender is verified by Special Executive magistrate, Balapur. The petitioner is stated to have executed that surrender for himself and also as power of attorney holder for others. It is further contended that on same day respondent No. 2 Public Trust created tenancy in favour of respondent No. 3 who is real brother of managing trustee of respondent No. 2 trust.

(3.) Immediately on next day i. e. 187 6/1996 the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit 77 of 1996 against present respondents No. 2 and No. 3 for declaration and injunction and in that suit he also sought temporary injunction to protect his possession. The said temporary injunction was rejected on 4/4/1996 and appeal filed by petitioner vide Misc. Civil appeal 37/ 1996 against it was also dismissed by additional District Judge. A Civil Revision 924/1996 filed before this court was later on disposed off as not tenable. In the meanwhile present respondent No. 3 filed RCS 94/1996 against Present petitioner in relation to very same land seeking perpetual injunction and declaration. He also sought temporary injunction to protect his possession during pendency of Suit and on 3/12/1996, the trial court granted that injunction to him. The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal 39/1997 against grant of this injunction but said appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge on 23/3/1998. Civil Revision filed before this court against both these orders by petitioner was rejected in motion hearing. Thereafter, on 7/9/1998 petitioner initiated proceedings for restoration of possession under Section 120 of bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as "tenancy Act" for short]. S. D. O. allowed this application and ordered summary eviction of present respondent No. 3 and restoration of possession of petitioner. Respondent No. 3 then approached Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 30/9/1999 and mrt allowed appeal of respondent No. 3 and set aside the order of SDO. Present petitioner challenged this order of M. R. T. in Writ Petition 3918/1999 and said writ petition has been admitted for final hearing and this court has directed parties to maintain status quo as on 25/11/1999 i. e. the day of its admission. The said writ petition is still pending and is being considered with this writ petition as per consent of parties. On 3/9/1997 i. e. prior to initiation 2006 (4) ALL MR - Aug of section 120 proceedings mentioned above, the present petitioner filed application before tahsildar under section 36 of Tenancy Act for restoration of possession and it was dismissed. On 5/7/2002, appeal filed against this rejection was also dismissed by S. D. O. petitioner erroneously challenged this order before additional Collector and that authority dismissed the challenge on the ground of absence of jurisdiction. On 30/12/2002, petitioner challenged the order of S. D. O. in appeal before present respondent No. 1 divisional Commissioner and said authority granted stay to the impugned order of S. D. O. However, after Divisional Commissioner got knowledge of previous history/orders, he vacated the said stay on 2/1/2003 without hearing petitioner. This vacation of stay order was challenged by present petitioner in writ petition 3035/2003 and that writ petition was allowed on 15/9/2003 whereby respondent no. l was asked to decide the proceedings before him on merits within period of two months. A contempt petition 62/2005 was required to be filed by present petitioner as respondent No. l did not decide within stipulated period and ultimately respondent no. l dismissed said Revision on 30/3/2005. This order is challenged in present writ petition.