Bombay High Court
Shri Baliram Kewaji Sonwane (Gawari) ... vs The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 26 September, 2016
Author: Prasanna B.Varale
Bench: Prasanna B.Varale
1 wp1689.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1689 OF 2015
1. Shri Baliram Kewaji Sonwane (Gawari),
aged about 72 years, Occ-Cultivator,
2. Smt. Gangabai wd/o Jairam Sonwane,
aged 60 years, Occ-Labourer and
Cultivator,
3. Shri Sanjay Jairam Sonwane,
aged 38 years, Occ-Labourer and
Cultivator.
Nos.1 to 3 are resident of Dhanora
Mogal, Tq. Chandur Railway, Distt.
Amravati.
4. Smt. Nanda Vitthal Waghade,
aged about 36 years, Occ-Household
and Cultivator, resident of Pimpalgaon,
Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Smt. Sunita Dhanraj Waghade,
aged about 34 years, Occ-Household
and Cultivator, resident of Hivari,
Tq. Aarni, Distt. Yavatmal.
6. Shri Gajanan Jairam Sonwane,
aged about 32 years, Occ-Cultivator,
7. Smt. Chhabu wd/o Shioram Sonwane,
aged 58 years, Occ-Labourer and
Cultivator,
8. Shri Nandkishor Shioram Sonwane,
aged 30 years, Occ-Labourer and
Cultivator.
Nos.6 to 8 are resident of Dhanora
Mogal, Tq. Chandur Railway, Distt.
Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 :::
2 wp1689.15
9. Smt. Manjula Madhaorao Raut,
aged about 60 years, Occ-Labourer
and Cultivator, resident of Mozari,
Tq. Teosa, Distt. Amravati. ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur.
2. The Sub-Divisional Officer,
Chandur Railway, Distt. Amravati.
3. The Tahsildar,
Chandur Railway, Distt. Amravati.
4. Shri Ashok Rambhau Gulhane,
r/o Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
Distt. Amravati.
5. Shri Prakash Rambhau Gulhane,
r/o Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
District Amravati.
6. Smt. Kantabai Sudhakarrao Shingane,
resident of Yavatmal.
7. Dr. Laxmanrao Narayanrao Gulhane,
resident of Amravati.
8. Shri Vijay Bharatrao Gulhane,
r/o Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
District Amravati.
9. Shri Anil Bharatrao Gulhane,
r/o Rajura, Tq. Chandur Railway,
District Amravati.
10. Smt. Shakuntalabai Bharat Gulhane,
r/o Rajura, Tq. Chandur Rly. Distt.
Amravati.
11. Smt. Bharati Sudhirrao Gulhane,
r/o Darwha.
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 :::
3 wp1689.15
12. Smt. Gangubai wd/o Wamanrao Dehankar,
resident of Talegaon Dashasar,
Punarvasan Colony, District Amravati.
13. Smt. Leelabai wd/o Namdeorao Mundwaik,
resident of Dhanora Mogal, Tq. Chandur
Rly. District Amravati.
14. Shri Vasantrao Nivruttinath Gulhane,
resident of Bori (Telyachi), Tq. Chandur
Rly. District Amravati.
15. Smt. Bebitai Madhukarrao Gulhane,
resident of Gulhanewadi Varud,
District Amravati.
16. Smt. Venubai wd/o Trimbakrao Gulhane,
resident of Majari Masla, Tq. Amravati,
District Amravati.
17. Smt. Jayashri Madhukarrao Sawwalakhe,
resident of Arvi, District Wardha. ... RESPONDENTS
....
Shri Vishal Anand, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.D. Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Shri Anand Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 to 17.
....
CORAM : PRASANNA B.VARALE, J.
DATED : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. Shri A.D. Sonak, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Anand Deshpande, the ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 4 wp1689.15 learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent Nos.4 to 17.
2. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 24th November, 2014 in Tenancy Revision No. TEN/B/13/2013 and the order dated 14th January, 2015 in Ten. Rev. No. REV/TNC/AMR-
39/2014 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.
3. It would not be necessary to refer to the other facts in details.
Suffice to say that the petitioner No.1 and two others approached the Tahsildar submitting an application for correction in the revenue record.
The order was passed by the Tahsildar on 25.03.2011. The same was challenged by presenting an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer. The SDO could not find any favour with the appeal and the same was dismissed maintaining the order of the lower authority dated 25.03.2011.
Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was preferred before the MRT under Section 107 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. An application seeking condonation of delay was submitted along with the appeal. The ground raised for seeking condonation of delay was of having no knowledge of the order passed by the authority for sufficient time and only the appellants on approaching the office of the Sub Divisional Officer and on making enquiry came to know that an adverse order is passed against the appellants. The ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 5 wp1689.15 petitioners/applicants were being represented through Counsel. The application was posted on 21.11.2014. As neither the petitioners/ applicants nor their Counsel was present before the authority, the matter was posted on 24.11.2014. The authority observing that till 11:30 a.m., on 24.11.2014, none appeared for the applicants, rejected the application.
The petitioners/applicants immediately sought for review or recall of the order dated 24.11.2014. The learned Member, MRT, by observing that the application does not attract the remedy of review, rejected the review application.
4. Shri Vishal Anand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submits that on 21.11.2014, the Counsel was engaged before this Court i.e. High Court and was unable to attend the proceedings before the MRT. He further submits that as neither the party nor the Counsel was aware that the application was posted on 24.11.204, the Counsel and the party failed to appear before the learned Member, MRT and when the fact of rejection of the application came to the notice of the petitioners and the Counsel, immediately a review application was filed. Shri Anand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Member, MRT though observed that on 21.11.2014, the applicants and the Counsel were not present, without giving any further opportunity of hearing, hurriedly passed the order on the application at 11:30 a.m. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that though it was not necessary for the ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 6 wp1689.15 learned Member of the MRT to assess the merit of the matter while considering the application seeking condonation of delay, the learned Member firstly undertook the exercise of assessing the merit in absence of the Counsel representing the party and secondly only on hearing the other side, arrived at a conclusion that the delay is not properly explained and resultantly rejected the application. Shri Anand, the learned Counsel then invites my attention to the application seeking review and submits that it was specifically submitted before the learned Member, MRT that on 24.11.2014 the Counsel was representing his matter before the High Court and as such he was unable to attend the proceedings before the MRT and without granting an opportunity of hearing, the application was rejected.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submits that even review application was decided by the learned Member by adopting very hyper technical approach. He also invites my attention to the reasons assigned by the learned Member for rejecting the review application and more particularly by inviting my attention to para 4, submits that when the Tribunal observed that when Section 322 provides for remedy for review and further refers to the grounds on which the Tribunal can entertain the review including the ground of any other sufficient reason, utterly failed to consider the ground of the inability of the Counsel was a sufficient reason for seeking review. It is the submission of Shri Anand, the learned Counsel for the petitioners that on the backdrop of this fact, the observation of the learned Member that the application does not attract the remedy of review ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 7 wp1689.15 is clearly unsustainable.
5. Shri Anand Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondents vehemently submits that the order passed by the learned Member, MRT needs no interference as the learned Member assessed the merits of the matter and was convinced that the appeal filed by the petitioner was not meritorious.
6. I am unable to accept the submission of Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for the respondents for the simple reason that before the merits of the appeal could have been assessed by the learned Member, the learned Member was required to consider the merits of the application seeking condonation of delay by giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. As stated above, the material placed on record clearly shows that the application was posted initially on 21.11.2014. It is not in dispute that on 21.11.2014, the Counsel for the petitioners was not present before the Tribunal. There is nothing on record to show that the subsequent date of hearing of the application i.e. 24.11.2014 was initimated to the petitioners/ applicants. The material placed on record clearly shows that on 21.11.2014, the Counsel representing the petitioners was unable to attend the Tribunal as he was engaged in the matter before the High Court. The review application also refers to the very ground of the inability of the Counsel. There is also some merit in the submission of Shri Anand, the ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 8 wp1689.15 learned Counsel for the petitioners that the learned Member could have granted an opportunity to the petitioners i.e. by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Counsel representing the petitioners on 24.11.2014 to observe the principle of natural justice in a real sense. The learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal himself observed that till 11:30 a.m., none appeared for the applicants and as such he proceeded to pass the order. If the application was posted for orders on 24.11.2014, on the backdrop of the fact that the petitioners or their Counsel were not present on 21.11.2014 then the learned Member could have waited for some sufficient period so as to observe the principle of natural justice i.e. giving an opportunity of hearing. There was no such a pressing contingency requiring the learned Member to pass the order on the application at 11:30 a.m.
7. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Counsel for the petitioners has made out a case on the ground of no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners by the learned Member of the Tribunal while deciding the application seeking condonation of delay. Thus, the orders impugned in the petition namely orders dated 24.11.2014 and 14.01.2014 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Member, MRT, Nagpur for deciding the application seeking condonation of delay filed at the instance of the petitioners afresh by giving an equal opportunity of hearing to the ::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 ::: 9 wp1689.15 parties. The learned Counsel for the respective parties submit that to avoid any further delay, the parties would appear before the learned Member, MRT, Nagpur on 05th October, 2016. In case for some reason, the learned Member is unable to hear the parties on 05th October, 2016, the learned Member to post the application on such a date fixing the calender that the parties get sufficient opportunity to appear before the authority.
The learned Member to decide the application as early as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of the order.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms.
JUDGE *rrg.
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 :::10 wp1689.15 C E R T I F I C A T E "I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : R.R. Ghatole. Uploaded on : 28.09.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2016 00:45:31 :::