RAJARAM ANANT AMONKAR Vs. JANI HARISHCHANDRA NAIK KHANDEPARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE Returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of parties. This writ petition is filed against the order of Secretary revenue.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this writ petition, are as follows : the respondent No. 1 had filed an application against one Jairam Neugi and others for purchasing a dwelling house under the Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The petitioner was issued a notice and was informed that the petitioner was joined as a party as an opponent to the said proceedings on the ground that the said property was purchased by him from the respondent No. 1. The petitioner was required to file his objection to the said application. It was contended that the respondent No. 1 was registered as a mundkar of late Jairam Neugui in respect of House No. 139 by order dated 08. 12. 1988. The petitioner then, contacted his Counsel and inspected the record. He applied for certified copy of the order dated 08. 12. 1988. On going through the said order, it was found that the heirs of the Jairam Neugui, had not contested the proceedings and they were ordered to proceed ex-parte. The Mamlatdar, therefore, ordered the respondent No. 1 to be registered as mundkar in House No. 139. This was solely on the evidence of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner submits that he had purchased from the heirs of the late Jairam Neugui, a piece of land admeasuring 208 square metres which is 3 metres away from the outer wall of the house of the respondent No. 1. It is contended that the respondent No. 1 had, however, illegally extended an area of her plot. The petitioner purchased the said plot by sale deed dated 07. 01. 1988 and had paid the consideration. The petitioner then, filed an appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar before the Collector with an application for condonation of delay and an application for leave to appeal. The additional Collector by order dated 29. 05. 1997 allowed the appeal as well as the application for condonation of delay. He set aside the order of the Mamlatdar dated 08. 12. 1988 and directed to hear the petitioner and pass a speaking order. Being aggrieved by that order of Additional Collector, a revision application was preferred before the Administrative Tribunal. The order of the Collector was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal, who confirmed the order of the Additional Collector.

(3.) A writ petition was preferred against that order bearing Writ Petition No. 470/2005, which was also dismissed. A Letters Patent Appeal was also preferred, which came to be dismissed on 26. 02. 2007. The Mamlatdar to whom the proceedings were remanded, took up the matter for hearing before him and passed orders dated 15. 06. 2007 and 02. 07. 2007. The matter was posted for recording of evidence and holding fresh enquiry. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 objected to recording of any further evidence on the ground that the Mamlatdar was not directed to record any fresh evidence in the matter. After hearing the parties, the Mamlatdar was pleased to pass an order on 02. 07. 2007 overruling the objection and permitting the petitioner to cross-examine the respondent No. 1 and to lead evidence in the matter. Being aggrieved by that order, another revision was preferred before the Deputy Collector, who quashed the order of the Mamlatdar and directed the Mamlatdar to hear the petitioner and at the most, permit him to lead evidence. The revision was preferred before the Administrative Tribunal by the present petitioner. The Administrative Tribunal was pleased to reject the revision as it held that it has no jurisdiction to entertain it. Hence, a revision was preferred before the Revenue Minister, who passed order directing the Mamlatdar to record the evidence of Rajaram and to give hearing and decide the issues.