Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. According to Petitioners, on the demise of Ishwarsing, the name of his son Dhanusing was entered into the "other rights"

column in respect of the subject lands. Dhanusing filed Appeal being Appeal No. 78/APPL/MLRC/A-13 before the Collector, Aurangabad against the order dated 17.08.1978. This Appeal came to be allowed confirming the name Dhanusing in the column of "other rights" as occupier of the said land. After of death of original owner Mehboob Ali Khan on 30.04.1988, the names of his legal heirs were mutated in the revenue record and they were shown as owners in respect of the subject lands. Legal heirs of Mehboob Ali Khan sold the said land to Petitioners by executing five sale-deeds duly registered with the office of Sub-Registrar Assrurances, Jalna-1. On the basis of said sale-deeds, names of Petitioners were included in the ownership column in respect of the subject lands by Mutation Entry Nos. 449 to

wp7813.2.24.odt

8. It is further contended by Petitioners that on 29.10.2010, Dhanusing passed away and his legal heirs thereafter sought to incorporate their names in the ownership column in respect of the lands in question. Writ Petition No. 545/2013 was filed, which came to be disposed of by order dated 27.01.2016 directing the Tahsildar to hear and dispose of pending representation of Respondent No. 8 on its own merits. The Tahsildar, by order dated 01.06.2016, rejected the Application and directed Respondent No. 8 to approach appropriate Civil Court. Respondent No. 8 preferred Appeal before the Deputy Collector (Bhumi Sudhar), Jalna. The Deputy Collector, by order dated 29.04.2017, allowed the Appeal. It is the case of the Petitioners that though the said Appeal was filed under Section 247 of MLRC challenging mutation in favour of the Petitioners, the Deputy Collector, travelled beyond his jurisdiction and held that Respondent No. 8 and his ancestors were tenants and in that capacity in possession of the suit lands prior to 1950 and therefore, they are entitled to include their names in the ownership column. This order came to be challenged before the Additional Collector, Jalna. The Additional Collector, allowed said appeal and the order passed by the Deputy Collector was set aside. Respondent No. 8 being aggrieved thereby challenged the said order before the wp7813.2.24.odt Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, successfully. The Additional Divisional Commissioner, by order dated 05.04.2021, set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector and restored the order passed by the Deputy Collector. Petitioners took exception to the said order before the Honourable Minister by filing Revision Application bearing No. Appeal/2021/P/54/J-7. The Minister, by order dated 31.05.2021, stayed the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. It is the case of the Petitioners that without giving an opportunity of hearing, the Honourable Minister vacated the interim relief and decided the proceeding by order dated 24.06.2024. Hence, these Petitions.

9. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that it was never case of the contesting Respondents or predecessors of Respondents that in the capacity of tenant of the subject lands they came into possession thereof. By referring to the previous proceedings including proceeding before the Trial Court, it is contended that all throughout, a claim was raised on the basis of the agreement to sale entered into between ancestors of Respondent No. 8 and the original owner of the subject land. Attention of the Court is also drawn to the orders passed by the Civil Court protecting wp7813.2.24.odt possession of the contesting Respondent and predecessors on the basis of the agreement to sale and they being inducted in the subject lands under the said agreement. It is submitted that at no point of time, the status of Respondent No. 8 or his predecessors was held to be of a tenant by the competent Tenancy Tribunal. It is submitted that even before the Tahsildar, when exception was taken to mutation of names of the Petitioners in the revenue record qua subject lands, it was not the case of the contesting Respondents about them or predecessors being tenants in respect of the said lands. It is submitted that it is for the first time, before the appellate authority, a claim is made under Section 247 of MLRC with regard to the tenancy. It is further argued that the Deputy Collector, while exercising powers under Section 247 MLRC, has no jurisdiction to enter upon the issue as to whether the party before him is tenant or otherwise and the said issue can be decided only in the proceeding under Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the competent Tribunal. It is submitted that the Additional Collector has rightly set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector however, the same was erroneously restored by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. The order passed by the Honourable Minister is taken exception to on duel grounds; firstly, that the Petitioners being not given fair opportunity wp7813.2.24.odt to submit their case before the Minister and secondly on merit that the Minister ought to have considered the fact with regard to there being no claim made by the contesting Respondent or his ancestors about tenancy till filing of the Appeal before the Deputy Collector under Section 247 of MLRC. On these, amongst other submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioners seeks setting aside of the impugned orders.

- 14 -

wp7813.2.24.odt directed Respondent No. 8 to approach Civil Court for establishing his title over the subject lands.

14. Then thereafter, an Appeal came to be filed before the Deputy Collector under Section 247 of MLRC. Herein, for the first time, it was claimed by Respondent No. 8 to be the tenant in respect of the subject lands. For the purpose of raising said claim, no order passed by the Tenancy Tribunal was relied upon. In the proceeding under Section 247 of MLRC, practically the Deputy Collector has held that Respondent No. 8 is the tenant in respect of the subject lands and therefore, he becomes owner/deemed owner and hence, mutation needs to be effected to that effect. It is pertinent to note that under the MLR code, the revenue authorities cannot decide the status of any person to be a tenant and the same is to be decided by the competent Tribunal. Admittedly, no such declaration has been given by the Tenancy Tribunal in favour of Respondent No. 8 in respect of the subject lands. The order passed by the Deputy Collector, therefore, is beyond jurisdiction and hence cannot sustain. The Additional Collector, was therefore, justified in setting aside the said order. The Additional Divisional Commissioner as well as the Honourable Minister, however, failed to take into consideration the