GANPAT RAGHO Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Special Civil Application the petitioners challenge the legality and the correctness of the order passed by the Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in their Revision No. 1113 of 1965 on 18th November 1965. The Special Civil Application was heard by our learned brother Abhyankar J. on 4th July 1968 and he has referred the following question to the Division Bench for decision as the view taken by Paranjpe J. on this point in his judgment D/- 20-12-1966 in Spl. Civil Applns. Nos. 1189 of 1965 and 394 of 1966 (Bom), was not acceptable to him. The question referred to, is as follows:--"whether an order of the Tahsildar or the Tribunal is revisable under Section 110 of the new Tenancy Act, whether or not such order is appealable?"

(2.) IT is not necessary to refer In details to the facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the proceedings out of which the Special Civil Applications arise were initiated by the present respondent No. 4 Ninaji son of Raghoji, claiming declaration under Section 100 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act, to the effect that petitioners in these Special Civil Applications were not the tenants of the land survey No. 407/4, situated at village Malkapur, Taluq Malkapur, District Buldhana. The petitioners resisted the claim of the original applicant. However, the Naib-Tahsildar Malkapur granted the declaration to the respondent No. 4 by his order dated 16th June 1964, holding that petitioners were not the tenants of the said suit land within the meaning of Section 6 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act. Petitioners then challenged this order of the Naib-Tahsildar in appeal before the Special Deputy Collector Buldhana, and their appeal was rejected by him on 23rd February 1965. Petitioners carried the matter in revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 1113/ten/1965. In the meanwhile doubt seems to have been raised before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in several cases as to the competency of the Tahsildar to entertain application for such declarations and also about the competency of any appeal against such order of the Tahsildar in such cases before the Special Deputy Collector and the competency of the revision against the order of the Deputy Collector to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 110 or 111 of the Tenancy Act. This matter therefore was referred to a Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and was heard along with some other revision cases including revision application No. 2244/64 and revision application No. 745/64. By order dated 18-11-1965 the Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that such applications for negative declarations were maintainable and Tahsildar was competent to decide the same. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, further held that no appeal was competent against such order to the Collector or the Deputy Collector as Section 107 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act did not in terms provide for any appeal against order passed by Tahsildar under Section 6 of the Act though in the corresponding Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Section 74 did in terms provide for an appeal against such order passed by the Mamlatdar. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further held that revisional powers of the Collector under Section 110 could be exercised only against the orders passed by the Tahsildars in cases made appealable under Section 107 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act and no revision was competent before the Collector, in the present case, as the order passed by the Naib-Tahsildar on 16-6-1964 was not appealable under Section 107 of the Tenancy Act. It is this order that is challenged in this Special Civil Application.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, aggrieved parties in Revision Application No. 2244/64 had preferred a Special Civil Application to this Court being Special Civil Application No. 1189/65 against the same order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 18-11-1965. Applicants in Revision No. 745 of 1964 had also preferred a Special Civil Application being Special Civil Application No. 394/66 against the same order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Both these Special Civil Applications were heard by Paranjpe J. on 20th December 1966. Paranjpe J. confirmed the view of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on all the points and consequently held that no appeal was competent before the Collector or Deputy Collector against the order of the Mamlatdar giving negative declaration as to the tenancy claims of the tenants and as such the said order also was not revisable under Section 110 of the Tenancy Act as the revisional powers of the Collector under Section 110 are confined to only such orders which are rendered appealable under Section 107 of the said Act. As stated above, when the present Special Civil Application came up for hearing before Abhyankar J. on 4-7-1968, he did not find it possible to agree with the view of Paranjpe J. as far as the competency of the Collector to revise the order of the Tahsildar under Section 110 of the Tenancy Act is concerned. On other two points, however, Abhyankar J. has concurred with view of Paranjpe J. Hence this reference by Abhyankar J. , to this Division Bench on a limited question formulated by him and extracted in the earlier part of this judgment.