RAJENDRA Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 13.05.2015 passed by respondent no.5- Hon'ble Minister, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra, in Revision Application No. RTS- 3315/932/P.N./149/G-6, the petitioners, who were original respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the aforesaid revision application, preferred this Writ Petition.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present Writ Petition are as follows: a. The suit property involved in the present matter is land Gat no. 15 (original survey nos. 7 to 15), situated at village Kauthe Malkapur, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar and it is Hadola Watan land. Though the matter concerns with the permission to convert the suit property into non-agricultural use, certain facts, as pleaded by both the parties, are required to be mentioned.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned order dated 13.05.2015, on the face of it, is illegal and arbitrary for the reasons that the same is cryptic and unreasoned order and the same is passed without deciding the contentions raised by the present petitioners. Even though the petitioners have requested for oral hearing, the same came to be denied arbitrarily. Learned senior counsel submits that the contentions raised by the petitioners in their written arguments were not at all considered by respondent no.5/Hon'ble Minister. The petitioners were only supplied the copy of the revision application but the documents annexed to the revision application were never supplied to the petitioners. Though it was specifically brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Minister, yet the documents were not supplied. Hence, the impugned order itself is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel submits that the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.01.2014 came to be challenged before the Hon'ble Minister in the Revision filed on 13.03.2015. Though there is delay of more than one year, yet no application seeking condonation of delay came to be filed. The Hon'ble Minister has decided the said revision on merits without condoning the delay. The learned senior counsel submits that respondent no.6 has deliberately not filed the statutory second appeal against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner and preferred the revision before the Minister on 13.03.2015. The learned senior counsel submits that it is the part of record that the Hon'ble Minister, within a period of seven days, has heard and allowed the said revision petition. Learned senior counsel submits that the revision itself is not maintainable before respondent no.5/Hon'ble Minister since the matter was remanded by the Commissioner directing the Sub-Divisional Officer to make an inquiry into the matter on certain points as formulated in the order. Thus, the revision before the Hon'ble Minister is premature and the same could not have been entertained. Though the remedy of statutory second appeal is available under the MLR Code, the exercise of revisional powers was totally unwarranted and uncalled for and the same has been done with the sole intention to favour respondent no.6. Learned counsel submits that the so-called sale deeds executed in favour of Ravindra Birole are itself hit by the provisions of the Act of 1958 and hence at any rate, the NA permission could not have been granted as the sale deeds in favour of Ravindra Birole and the U-Tech Sugar Limited are itself void ab initio. The Hon'ble Minister has not considered the effect of the amendments of the years 2002 and 2008 in the Act of 1958. There is no provision in the amended Act of 1958 to pay 13 times Najrana to convert new tenure land into old tenure land. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners are the co- owners of the land Gat no. 15. So far as the sale deeds executed in favour of Ravindra Birole are concerned, the persons, who have got no absolute title, have executed the said sale deeds. All the sale deeds are the subject matter of challenge in special civil suit no. 27 of 2013 before the civil court. Learned senior counsel submits that land Gat no. 15 comprises the huge portion of land admeasuring 92.59 H. The said land was allotted to eight families towards the inferior watan which is not partitioned by metes and bounds and the shares of persons are yet not fixed. There is no measurement map prepared by issuing notice to all the land holders and adjacent land holders. Respondent no.6 has sought NA permission of the part of land Gat no. 15 without making any actual measurement. Learned senior counsel submits that there is no deemed NA permission and on a simple application without compliance of any statutory rules, the permission for NA use cannot be granted. Said Ravindra Birole has applied for NA permission on 07.02.2013 wherein the statutory authority has directed him for various compliance by orders dated 14.03.2013, 28.03.2013 and 15.04.2013 respectively. Thus, the submission of the said respondent no.6 about expiry of 90 days and the deemed NA permission is irrelevant and cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. The learned senior counsel submits that the suit lands were never transferred to U-Tech Sugar Limited/respondent no.6 under the registered documents. On 07.02.2013, the said Ravindra Birole and Ashwini Birole have applied for NA permission under Section 44-A of the MLR Code and it nowhere discloses that the said permission is sought for respondent no.6 herein. There is no document for transfer of property from Ravindra Birole and said Ashwini Birole to respondent no.6 herein. Thus, respondent no.6 had never applied for NA use of the suit land. The learned senior counsel submits that there are valid questions raised before the authorities below regarding (a) inquiry of title,