Bombay High Court
Masnaji Jaywanta Kamble Through Lrs ... vs Khandu Satwa Kamble And Others on 17 December, 2019
Author: V.K. Jadhav
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 9747.2018+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9747 OF 2018
DINESH HARISHCHANDRA MOMALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. M S Deshmukh h/f
Momale U.L.
AGP for Respondents-State 1-5 : Mr S K Tambe
Advocate for Respondent 6 : Mr S V Warad
Mr A V Patil advocate For R No. 7, 8-A To 8-E, 8-EA, 8-
EB And 15 to 17.
Respondent nos. 7,10,11 to 14 served.
Respondent No. 9 deleted.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9777 OF 2018
MASNAJI JAYWANTA KAMBLE SINCE DECEASED
THROUGH L.RS.
VERSUS
KHANDU SATWA KAMBLE AND OTHERS.
...
Mr A V Patil advocate for petitioners.
Mr P G Gunale advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr S K Tambe AGP for respondent nos.2 to 7.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 273 OF 2019
SHAIKH MOHAMMAD FARUQ S/O ABDUL QUADER
VERSUS
KHANDU SATWA KAMBLE AND OTHERS.
...
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
2 WP 9747.2018+
...
Mr A N Sabnis Advocate for petitioner.
Mr P G Gunale advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr S K Tambe AGP for respondent State2-6 .
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
...
Reserved on : November 11, 2019
Pronounced on : December 17, 2019
...
ORDER :-
1. All these three writ petitions are heard fnalll with the consent of the parties at admission stage.
2. Bl wal of these three writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the legalitl and validitl of the judgment and order dated 31.7.2018 passed bl Respondent no.1 the Hon'ble Minister for State for Revenue.
3. Brief facts, giving rise to the present writ petitions are as follows :-
a] Deceased Satava and deceased Jalwanta were in possession of the land survel no.77 admeasuring 33 acres 21 gunthas as a tenant situated at village Nideban, Tq. Udgir, District Latur/Bidar. After aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
3 WP 9747.2018+ police action, original owner of the said land namell Habibulla Khan had gone to Hlderabad and subsequentll he died there. Names of deceased Jalwanta and heirs of deceased Satwa were recorded as the protected tenants in the tenancl register of the said land bl the competent authoritl. After independence, one Gangaram More who was claiming to be the owner and in possession of the said land, had tried to obstruct the possession of Jalwanta and Satwa. Even, said Gangaram More had initiated the proceedings for recoverl of the rent and recoverl of possession of land against the legal heirs of Satwa and Jalwanta before the competent Tenancl Authoritl. Said dispute had gone upto the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad and it was decided in favour of the heirs of deceased Satwa and Jalwanta vide judgment and order dated 10.6.1975. Respondent Khandu Satwa Kamble and deceased Jalwanta had fled an application to mutate their names in the revenue record regarding the said land and, accordingll, competent authorities after following the prescribed procedure had sanctioned aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
4 WP 9747.2018+ mutation entrl no.94 in favour of Jalwanta and the legal heirs of Satwa in the lear 1977. According to the petitioners, said mutation entrl clearll incidicates that legal heirs of deceased Satwa and Jalwanta are the owner and possessors of the said land in question to the extent of half share each. Said Gangaram Mroe had challenged the said mutation entrl no.94 before the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir, District Latur bl fling an appeal, which came to be rejected vide judgment and order dated 12.8.1982 in ROR appeal No.30 of 1981. In the said appeal, respondent no.1 herein namell Khandu alongwith his other brothers and Jalwanta were the partl respondents. According to the petitioners, so far as Jalwanta is concerned, he has 1/2 (half) share in the land survel no.77 and respondent Khandu as well as his real three brothers have no right over it for anl purpose. After demise of Jalwanta Saidu, his son Mashnaji had fled an application and on the basis of which mutation entrl no.294 came to be sanctioned to the extent of half of share of deceased Jalwanta, wherebl names of the legal heirs of deceased Jalwanta aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
5 WP 9747.2018+ namell (i).Mashnaji Jalwanta, (ii).Apparao Jalwanta,
(iii).Gangabai w/o Jalwanta, (iv). Rajabai w/o Jalwanta,
(v). Yamunabai w/o Madhavrao and (vi). Indirabai w/o Pandurang were brought on record bl mutation entrl no.294. This mutation entrl dated 14.10.1987 came to be certifed on 5.11.1987. Furthermore, partition came to be effected amongst the respondent Khandu herein and his three real brothers and sons of Malu Kamble and mutation entrl no.431 dated 13.3.1992 came to be sanctioned. On 13.3.1992 another application came to be fled bl Rama Saidu Kamble alongwith partition deed and, accordingll, mutation entrl no.432 came tobe recorded. It appers from the said mutation entrl no.432 that Rama Kamble submitted an application pursuant to which land to the share of deceased Jalwanta Kamble was divided amongst four persons including Rama Saidu Kamble and others being legal heirs. The above referred mutation entrl no.431, 432 and 294 were the subject matter of challenge in ROR proceedings fled bl Waman s/o Gangaram More and said appeal came to be disposed of bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
6 WP 9747.2018+ District Latur, vide order dated 30.6.2004. Respondent Khandu Kamble and others were also partl respondent in the said ROR proceeding. Even, after demise of Rama Saidu Kamble, names of his legal heirs were taken on record bl mutation entrl no.624 certifed on 22.1.2001.
4. Respondent no.1 Khandu Satwa Kamble challenged mutation entrl no.94 dated 7.4.1977 and subsequent mutation entrl no.432 after death of Jalwanta after about 36 lears bl suppressing all these material facts and circumstances. The said proceedings came to be initiated on the basis of a simple application fled bl respondent Khandu Satwa Kamble bearing application no.1559 of 2012 and the learned Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir bl order dated 12.6.2014 allowed the said application, set aside the mutation entrl no.94 and 432. Being aggrieved bl the same, some of the purchasers of the portion of the suit propertl after effecting mutation entrl no.432 as well as heirs of Jalvanta had preferred separate appeals. The father of Masnaji Jalvanta Kambale and Apparao aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
7 WP 9747.2018+ Jalvant Kambale have fled the ROR appeal no.42/2016 before the Additional Collector, Latur. The learned Additional Collector bl order dated 18.11.206 in ROR no.42 of 2016 though dismissed appeal, granted libertl to the appellants therein to prefer an appeal in respect of those mutation entrl no.94, 432 before the competent authoritl bl establishing their tenancl rights. In the light of the above, the order passed bl the learned Additional Collector, Latur directing the parties to make grievance the before appropriate forums for establishing their tenancl rights, the legal heirs of Masnaji. Jalwanta alongwith other heirs of Jalwanta have fled an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad on 5.12.2016 alongwith an application for seeking condonation of delal. In the said appeal, respondent Khandu herein is the contesting respondent. Learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Aurangabad vide order dated 15.12.2016 has passed an interim order regarding the suit land and directed the parties to maintain status-quo till the decision of the delal condonation application and stal petition. aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
8 WP 9747.2018+
5. Meanwhile, some of the purchasers of the portion of the suit propertl approached the Divisional Commissioner bl prefering an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2016 passed bl the learned Additional Collector, Latur. In the said appeal, deceased Mashnaji was also impleaded as partl respondent. Though he died on 6.3.2016 his legal representatives were not added as partl respondents. However, in the said appeal, the learned Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2017 pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 12.6.2014 passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir regarding cancellation of the Mutation Entrl No.94 and 432. Though, said order came to be passed behind back of the petitioner in writ petition no.9777 of 2018 (legal heirs of deceased Mashnaji Jalwanta Kamble). However, no adverse order came to be passed against them and as such thel had no reason to challenge the said judgment and order passed bl the Commissioner, Aurangabad. However, being aggrieved bl the above judgment and order, respondent Khandu aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
9 WP 9747.2018+ Satwa Kamble had fled Revision Petition before the respondent State Minister of Revenue. Even, in the said appeal, deceased Mashnaji was added as a partl respondent instead of his legal representatives. Respondent no.2 State Minister vide judgment and order dated 31.7.2018 pleased to allow the said appeal. Hence, these three writ petitions.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/s submit that in the tenancl register maintained bl the Tahsildar, Udgir names of deceased Satwa and deceased Jalwanta were recorded as protected tenants vide an order dated 11.12.1956. After following due procedure, thel were declared as owners in terms of the provisions of the Hlderabad Tenancl and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'HTAL' Act) and Mutation Entrl No.94 came to be recorded on 25.2.1977 which was certifed on 7.4.1977 in the record of rights of village Nideban, Tq. Udgir, District Latur. Leanred counsel submits that after demise of Satwa, names of i] Khandu, ii] Kisan, iii] aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
10 WP 9747.2018+ Maruti and [iv] Nivrutti all sons of Satwa were recorded alongwith the name of deceased Jalwanta. Aggrieved bl the above referred mutation entrl no.94, one Gangaram More, who was claiming to be the owner preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bidar against the order dated 14.3.1952 of Deputl Collector, Udgir. According to the said Gangaram More, he had leased the land to respondent Jalwanta and Satwa and he further requested for termination of tenancl and permission for personal cultivation bl fling an application before the Deputl Collector, Udgir. Accordingll, the learned Deputl Collector made an enquirl into the matter and found that the respondent Jalwanta and Satwa are the protected tenants. The Deputl Collector, Udgir as stated above bl order dated 14.3.1952 dismissed the application fled bl Gangaram More. Being aggrieved bl the same, said Gangaram More has preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bidar bearing appeal No.94/87/1952 and the learned Collector Bidar, bl order dated 7.7.1954 dismissed the said appeal. Learned counsel submit that furthermore aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
11 WP 9747.2018+ said Gangaram Narsing Mroe had also preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir against the certifcation of mutation entrl no.94 dated 7.4.1977 of village Nideban, Tq. Udgir. Learned counsel submits that deceased Khandu and deceased Satwa, who were the respondents in the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Offcer, at Udgir, have raised a specifc plea that thel are the protected tenants over the suit land originalll belonged to Habibulla Khan s/o Gazaikhan and that the appellant Gangaram More has no locus to challenge the mutation entrl no.94. The learned Sub Divisional Offcer Udgir bl judgment and order dated 12.8.1982 dismissed the said appeal. Learned counsel submits that in the backdrop of the above referred facts and situation, it is clear that deceased Jalwanta and deceased Satwa are the original protected tenants and during those tenancl proceeding, deceased Satwa died and respondent Khandu and his three real brothers brought on record the legal heirs of deceased Satwa. Learned counsel submits that so far as deceased Jalwanta is concerned, he had 1/2 (one half) share in aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
12 WP 9747.2018+ the land survel no.77 admeasuring 33 acres 21 gunthas and so far as his share is concerned, respondent Khandu herein and his three brothers are having no right over it for anl purpose. After demise of Jalwanta, his son Mashnaji fled an application for bringing on record the legal heirs of Jalwanta and bl mutation entrl no.294 names of legal heirs of deceased Jalwanta came to be mutated in respect of suit land survel no.77 to the extent of 8 aana. Said 8 Aana share is clearll mentioned in the mutation entrl no.294. Said mutation entrl no.294 dated 14.10.1987 came to be certifed on 5.11.1987. Learned counsel submits that on 13.3.1992 mutation entrl no.431 came to be sanctioned and the entrl about the partition in respect of the share held bl legal heirs of deceased Satwa was recorded to the extent of total 8 aana share out of the suit land survel no.77. So far as mutation entrl no.432 is concerned, same is in respect of the partition effected between the legal heirs of deceased Jalwanta to the extent of 8 aana share held bl deceased Jalwanta out of the land survel no.77. Learned counsel submits that so far as mutation aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
13 WP 9747.2018+ entrl no.432 is concerned, it was not the subject matter of challenge in writ petition no.4644 of 2004 decided bl this Court dated 21.7.2004 and onll mutation entrl no.431 was the subject matter of the aforesaid writ petition.
7. Learned counsel submits that mutation entrl no.432 came to be recorded on the application submitted bl Rama Saidu Kamble alongwith the partition deed. On the basis of the said application annexed with the partition deed, land to the share of deceased Jalwanta was divided amongst four persons including Rama Saidu Kamble. After demise of Rama Saidu Kamble, names of his legal heirs nine in numbers came to be recorded bl effecting mutation entrl no.624 dated 22.01.2001. Respondent Narsing s/o Rama Kamble is one of the legal heirs of said Rama Saidu Kamble. Said Narsing Rama Kamble alongwith other legal heirs fled an application before the Deputl Collector, Land Reforms, Latur seeking permission to alienate the land and bl order dated 4.3.2003 the aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
14 WP 9747.2018+ Deputl Collector, Land Reforms, Latur has granted permission to Narsing Rama Kamble and 6 others for alienating the land admeasuring 2H out of the land survel no.77 to one Shaikh Mobin Ahmed s/o Mehboobsab and three others, all resident of Udgir. Mutation entrl no.777 came to be certifed to that extent on 27.6.2003. Learned counsel submits that bl order dated 31.1.2004 the Deputl Collector, Land Reforms, Latur has granted permission to the Shaikh Mobin Ahmed Maheboobsab and others to alienate the aforesaid land to one Arun Bapusaheb Patil r/o Udgir. Mutation entrl no.852 came to be sanctioned and certifed on 20.9.2004. Learned counsel submits that bl order dated 25.1.2012 the Deputl Collector, Land Reforms, Latur has granted permission to said Aarun Patil for alination of the aforesaid land to one Shri Dinesh Harischandra Momale and ors (petitioners in writ petition no.9747 of 2018) and mutation entrl no.1308 came to be sanctioned on execution of the registered sale deed on 31.10.2012. Bl order dated 14.12.2012 the Deputl Collector, Latur has granted aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
15 WP 9747.2018+ permission to said Dinesh Harischandra Momale and the others (petitioners in writ petition No.9747 of 2018) to use the aforesaid land for N.A. purposes.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/s submits that, inspite of the above stated facts and circumstances respondent Khandu herein had fled the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Offcer, Udgir therebl surprisingll challenged the Mutation Entrl No.94 dated 7.4.1977 and subsequent mutation entrl no.432 after death of Jalwanta after about thirtl six lears bl suppressing all the material facts and circumstances. In the said proceeding surprisingll the concerned Sub- Divisional Offcer, Udgir without condoning the inordinate delal allowed the appeal fled bl respondent Khandu on the sole ground that from the record it appears that respondent Khandu alone has deposited the rent amount i.e. occupancl price of the land of which Satwa and Jalwanta were declared as Protected tenant and therefore respondent no.1 onll can be said as a protected tenant. Learned counsel submits that aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
16 WP 9747.2018+ said order passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir is contrarl to the tenancl and revenue record. The learned Additional Collector, Latur though took a view in ROR appeal no.42 of 2016 with connected appeals that revenue authorities do not have jurisdiction to deal with the tenancl matters, the learned Divisional Commissioner bl judgment and order dated 18.10.2017 in an appeal preferred against the above stated order passed bl the Additional Collector, Latur quashed and set aside the order dated 12.6.2014 passed bl the learned Sub-Divisional Offcer, Udgir regarding cancellation of mutation entrl No.94 and 432 on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Offcer, Udgir had not assigned anl reason for interfering with the impugned mutation entries after an inordinate delal of more than 30 lears, however, respondent Honourable State Minister Revenue ignoring all the facts and circumstances of the case and contrarl to the tenancl and revenue record allowed the appeal fled bl the respondent Khandu with a Jet speed. Leared counsel submits that all these writ petitions thus deserves to be aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
17 WP 9747.2018+ allowed bl quashing and setting aside the orders passed bl the authorities below and the application fled bl respondent Khandu numbered as 2012/JAMA/KAVI/1559 (hereinafter for short referred as 1559/2012) be rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent Khandu submits that, the father of respondent Khandu namell Satwa Kamble and Jalwanta Haibati were shown as the protected tenants of the suit land in the Tenancl register of the lear 1951. After death of Satwa, respondent Khandu, his three brothers and Jalwanta Kamble continued as tenants of the suit land and subsequentll thel came to be declared as owners of the said tenanted land. Learned counsel submits that respondent Khandu alone had deposited purchase price of suit land as Tenant purchaser on 11.9.1974 in the offce of the A.L.T. Udgir and accordingll mutation entrl no.94 came to be recorded and sanctioned on 7.4.1977. Thereafter, respondent Apparao and deceased Masnaji (now substituted bl his legal heirs who are also aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
18 WP 9747.2018+ petitioners in Writ Petition no.9777 of 2018) and one Rama Saidu prepared a bogus unregistered partition deed dated 13.3.1992 showing their alleged shares in the suit land in contravention of the provisions of the Tenancl Act and on that basis got sanctioned mutation entrl no.432 and got recorded their names in the other rights column of the 7/12 extract, when and whereas there was no partition of the suit land between respondent Khandu, his brothers and others bl metes and bounds. Learned counsel submits that thereafter said respondent Apparao and legal heirs of deceased Masnaji Jalwanta and Rama Saidu Kamble taking disadvantage of entries of their names in other rights column, shown illegal and fctitious alienation of some of the land survel no.77 to some other respondents. Learned counsel submits that respondent Khandu therefore preferred an appeal no.1559 of 2012 before the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir challenging therebl the mutation entrl no.94, 432. The learned Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir bl judgment and order dated 12.6.2014 rightll held that Jalwanta i.e. father of respondent aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
19 WP 9747.2018+ Apparao Jalwanta and deceased Masnaji Jalwanta is not tenant of the suit land and further held that mutatin entrl no.432 is illegal. It has also been held that said Rama Saidu Kamble and Maroti Satwa are not heirs of Jalwanta and there is no permission of the competent authoritl to the alleged partition. Learned Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir thus rightll cancelled the mutation entrl no.94 and 432 so also the subsequent mutations recorded on the basis of the mutation entrl no.432. The petitioners and some of the respondents challenged the above said order dated 12.6.2014 passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir bl fling an appeal before the Additional Collector, Latur. Furthermore, the respondent Apparao Jalwanta and legal heirs of deceased Masnaji Jalwanta also fled an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad on 7.12.2016 challenging the said order passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir. Thus, thel have preferred appeals before the two forums challenging the same order. The learned Additional Collector, Latur has refused to entertain the revision for want of jurisdiction. aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
20 WP 9747.2018+ However, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad without having anl power to exercise anl revisional jurisdiction, illegalll and wrongll entertained the revision petition under section 257 of the Maharashtra Revenue Code and bl judgment and order dated 18.10.2017 quashed and set aside the order passed bl the S.D.O. Udgir and Additional Collector, Latur. Said order passed bl the Additional Collector was without giving an opportunitl of hearing to respondent Khandu. Being aggrieved bl the same, respondent Khandu has fled a writ petition no.13437 of 2017 challenging the said orders passed bl the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in revision petition no.63 of 2017. However, since second revision is maintainable under section 257 of the Code before the State Government, respondent Khandu had fled second revision application before the Hon'ble State Minister for revenue. Learned counsel submits that the Hon'ble Minister Revenue, after hearing all the parties and after considering the entire evidence on record allowed the said revision bl judgment and order dated aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
21 WP 9747.2018+ 31.7.2018 and therebl quashed and set aside the judgment and order dated 18.10.2017 passed bl the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad in revision no.63 of 2017 and confrmed the judgment and order dated 12.6.2014 passed bl the S.D.O. Udgir in case no.1559 of 2012. Learned counsel submits that there is no substance in all these three writ petitions and all writ petitions are liable to be dismissed.
10. I have also heard the learned AGP for respondent State Minister for revenue.
11. It is a part of the record that in the register pertaining to the entries of the tenants particularll the substance of the information of the rights of the protected tenants maintained bl the Tahsildar Udgir names of deceased Satwa and (deceased) Jalwanta were recorded as protected tenants vide order dated 11.12.1956 and after following due procedure thel were declared as owners as per the provisions of Hlderabad Tenancl and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Further, aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
22 WP 9747.2018+ Mutation entrl no.94 recorded on 25.2.1977 certifed on 7.4.1977 in respect of the land survel no.77 clearll demonstrates the same. On perusal of the copl of the tenancl register namuna no.4, that said Satwa since passed awal, names of his four sons Khandu (respondent herein), 2- Kisan, 3- Maruti and Nivrutti all sons of Satwa alongwith the name of deceased Jalwanta came to be recorded as protected tenants. On careful perusal of thesaid M.E No.94 which is recorded on the basis of tenancl Hakka Patrak (tenancl rights register), it appears that names of deceased Jalwanta and names of aforesaid legal heirs of deceased Satwa came to be mutated in respect of the land survel no.77 admeasuring 33 acres 21 gunthas as per tenancl no.598 of the lear 1951 and it has been specifcalll mentioned that deceased Jalwanta (Haibati) is having eight ana share.
12. It is also a part of the record that after independence one Gangaram More, who was claiming to be the owner in possession of said land had tried to aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
23 WP 9747.2018+ obstruct the possession of deceased Jalwanta and deceased Satwa. Even, he had initiated the proceedings for recoverl of rent and recoverl of possession of the land against the legal heirs of deceased Satwa and Jalwanta before the competent Tenancl authoritl. The learned Collector, Bidar bl order dated 7.7.1954 in appeal 94/187/1952 has dismissed the appeal preferred bl said Gangaram More. In the said appeal, Gangaram More had claimed to be the owner and pattedar of the suit land on the basis of sale deed and the civil court had issued a declaratorl decree establishing Gangaram More's title over the suit land. Said Gangaram More had also contended in the said appeal that Nazim Jamabandi had taken cognizance of these facts and issued an order to change the entires in the village register and revenue record and to mention his name as Pattedar of the suit lands. The learned Collector, Bidar has observed that no documents about the orders issued bl Nazim Jamabandi are available. Learned Collector, Bidar has dismissed the appeal bl upholding the order passed bl the Deputl Collector, Udgir. aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
24 WP 9747.2018+
13. It is also a part of the record that so far as certifcation of the mutation entrl no.94 dated 7.4.1977 as mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, said Gangaram More had preferred an appeal no. 1981/ROR- 30 against Jalwanta and legal heirs of deceased Satwa. The learned S.D.O. Udgir bl order dated 12.8.1982 rejected the said appeal intoto and upheld the mutation entrl no.94 of village Nideban Tq. Udgir dated 7.4.1977.
14. In the backdrop of all these facts, the subsequent mutation entrl no.431, 432 for bringing on record the legal heirs and even thereafter other mutations in respect of the purchasers appears to be in consonance with the entries and tenancl record as referred above. So far as subsequent alienation in favour of various purchasers are concerned, the learned Deputl Collector, Land Reforms, Latur has accorded sanction to all such transactions from time to time and copies of the same are placed on record. aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
25 WP 9747.2018+
15. It is pertinent that in the lear 2012 respondent Khandu bl fling a mere application bearing application no.1559 of 2012 before the Deputl Collector, Udgir after a gap of more than 30 lears challenged all those mutations. It is also pertinent that respondent Khandu for the frst time has raised a contention that names of legal heirs of Jalwanta have been wrongll mutated in respect of the land survel no.77. Respondent Khandu in the said proceedings before S.D.O. Udgir has contended that he himself and his three brothers, who are the legal heirs of deceased Satwa and Jalwanta Kamble are the tenants and each of them entitled for six acres of land. It has also been contended that no partition has been effected and all the mutations with regard to the same are false. It has also been contended that no proper permission was taken from the competent authoritl for alienating the said land in favour of various purchasers and as such all the mutations are liable to be quashed and set aside. Even though, respondent Khandu has not disputed the mutation entrl no.94 and status of Jalwanta as a aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
26 WP 9747.2018+ tenant over the suit land alongwith his father Satwa, the learned S.D.O. Udgir contrarl to the tenancl record and without there being anl submissions made bl respondent Khandu in the said proceeding with regard to the same, observed that Khandu Satwa is the onll tenant purchaser as per the entrl taken in dal book register. The learned S.D.O. Udgir has also observed that there is no record available that Jalwanta Saidu has paid the rent amount. On the basis of all these erroneous observations contrarl to the tenancl record and even without anl challenge to the mutation entrl no.94 quashed and set aside the mutation entrl no.94 and mutation entrl no.432. The learned S.D.O. Udgir has also accepted that in respect of the land survel no.77 names of legal heirs of Satwa and name of Jalwanta appears as a protected tenant and in the tenancl register there is entrl about their names to the extent of 8 ana share to Jalwanta, however, bl referring last few lines of the entrl of the tenancl register, the learned S.D.O. has made invention that 8 (eight) aana share of Jalwanta has not been referred at the end. It aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
27 WP 9747.2018+ is pertinent that even though it is nobodl's case and it is not so specifcalll mentioned in the application bearing no.1559 of 2012 the learned S.D.O. has concluded that respondent Khandu alone had deposited the amount of occupancl price and, as such, he alone is the tenant and deceased Jalwanta has not deposited the occupancl price. The learned S.D.O. Udgir has made said observations without anl basis contrarl to the revenue record. It is also pertinent that the learned S.D.O. Udgir has entertained said application after a gap of more than 30 lears. It is also not clear from the said order as to under which provisions of law the learned S.D.O. Udgir has considered the said application without anl separate application seeking condonation of delal. The learned Additional Collector, Latur has not touched to the merits and observed that revenue authorities have no reason to interfere in the tenancl issues and instead of allowing the appeal, dismissed it and further granted libertl to the aggrieved partl to approach the competent authoritl against mutation entrl no.94 and 432. The learned Additional aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
28 WP 9747.2018+ Collector, Latur ought to have allowed the said appeal with the libertl as mentioned above. However, on perusal of the learned Commissioner's order, it appears that the learned Commissioner has gone through the entire record carefulll and observed that even against the order of the mutation entrl no.94, said Gangaram Narsing More has lastll approached to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad and bl judgment and order dated 10.6.1975 the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad has confrmed the orders passed bl the Authorities below and held that mutation entrl no.94 is proper, correct and legal and dismissed the revision preferred bl said Gangaram More. The learned Additional Commissioner has thus observed that in the lear 2014 there was no reason for the S.D.O. Udgir to pass anl different order and accordingll allowed the revision, quashed and set aside the orders passed bl the Additional Collector, Latur so also the order passed bl the SDO, Udgir.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
29 WP 9747.2018+
16. I have carefulll perused the impugned order passed bl the Hon'ble Minister. It is pertinent that the Hon'ble Minister has recorded submissions of both the parties and without anl reasons allowed the revision fled bl respondent Khandu and set aside the well reasoned order passed bl the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. It further appears that learned Minister has referred the order passed bl S.D.O. Udgir dated 12.8.1982 in the appeal preferred bl said Gangaram More against Jalwanta and legal heirs of Satwa and observed that said order has attained the fnalitl. I do not understand even though observing the same what led the Hon'ble Minister to allow the revision preferred bl the respondent Khandu.
17. In view of the above discussions, all the writ petitions deserve to be allowed bl quashing and setting aside the order passed bl the Hon'ble Minister so also the orders passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir and the Additional Collector, Latur. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
30 WP 9747.2018+ ORDER I. Writ Petition Nos.9747 of 2018 (Dinesh Harischandra Momale and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others), Writ Petition No.9777/2018 (Masnaji Jalwanta Kamble Since deceased through L.Rs. Vs. Khandu Satwa Kamble and others ) and Writ Petition No.273 of 2019 (Mohammad Faruq Abdul Quadar Vs. Khandu Satwa Kamble) are herebl allowed.
ii. The order passed bl the Sub Divisional Offcer, Udgir, District Latur in case No.2012/JM/KV-1559 dated 12.6.2014, the order passed bl the Additional Collector, Latur dated 18.11.2016 in appeal No.2016/ROR/A-42 and the order passed bl respondent No.1 Hon'ble Minister for State Revenue dated 31.7.2018 in Revision Petition No.2018/pra.kra.25/J-7A are herebl quashed and set aside.
Iii. The order passed bl the Additional Divisional
Commissioner, Aurangabad in
ROR/REV/63/2017 dated 18.10.2017 stands confrmed.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::
31 WP 9747.2018+ iv. Application no.2012/JM/KV/1559 is herebl rejected.
v. All the writ petitions are accordingll disposed off.
( V.K. JADHAV ) JUDGE ...
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2019 23:32:09 :::