SAMPAT HARIBHAU WAGH Vs. BANUBAI PHULCHAND KATARIAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is in possession of Gat No.176 admeasuring 4 H. 27 R. in village Bhigwan, Taluka Indapur, District Pune. He came to be in possession of the same by a registered sale deed dated 26th October 1976 from the then owner Katariya. It is disclosed from the pleadings that the said Katariya got the land purchased from one Mhatre as per sale deed dated 5th September 1970 and Mhatre in turn got the property from one Keru Hulagude as per registered sale deed dated 19th May 1959.

(2.) IT has to be noted that before the petitioner purchased the land, he obtained permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati on 7th October 1976 under section 31 (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 which is evidenced by Exh. 'a'. IT is stated in that order that the order has been issued after due enquiry made through the Tahsildar, Indapur, and according to his report, the permission has been granted in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for both the sides are not aware whether Mhatre is alive at this distance of time, however, it is clear that a culpable negligence has been committed by the revenue authorities when the matter is re-opened and notice was issued to the petitioner on 27th October 1978. As I pointed out earlier, the transfer in favour of the petitioner was done with notice to the revenue authorities and after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati under section 31 (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Necessary entries must have been made in the records in this proceedings. I am at loss to understand if the order of invalidatiing the transfer in favour of Mhatre was passed as early as 21st February 1968, how the Revenue Authorities could have granted permission to the petitioner for getting the land transferred in his name after allowing him to get the sale deed executed in his favour. It is too late for the authorities to contend that the transfer in favour of the petitioner was illegal. The contention of the petitioner that the order of invalidation of transfer in favour of Mhatre was never brought to the notice of the petitioner even when he applied for permission under section 31 (a) of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 has to be accepted by the authorities and the possession of the petitioner in respect of the land should not have been disturbed. In view of this, the order impugned in this petition is liable to be quashed.