Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1) The Petitioner challenges the Order dated 11 December 2020, passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) in Revision RTS No.3413/4578, by which the Hon'ble Minister has allowed the Revision preferred by Respondent Nos. 2/3 and has set aside the Order dated 5 June 2013, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune and has confirmed the Order dated 24 June 905-IA-12753-2025_fc.doc 2011 passed by the Additional Collector. The Hon'ble Minister has directed conduct of enquiry by the Collector, Pune under Section 59(b) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLRC) about sale of land in question without permission of the Competent Authority in view of Circular dated 13 November 1979.

3) However, after 10 years of certification of the Mutation Entry, Maruti Sonawane took a volte face and filed Appeal under Section 59(b) of MLRC, seeking return of possession of the sold land. His Application was rejected by the Assistant Collector by Order dated 22 February 1979. It appears that some persons claiming to be tenants thereafter filed an Application under Section 84 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before Sub-Divisional Officer, Junnar, Pune, which is also dismissed by Order dated 18 March 1970. Thereafter, there was a quietus for a long time during which no proceedings were filed in respect of the land. After death of their father, names of Petitioners were recorded vide Mutation Entry No. 2327.

12) The Additional Collector committed an egregious error in entertaining the said Appeal filed after period of 42 long years and in setting aside Mutation Entry Nos. 156 and 2327. Under the garb of deciding the revenue entry proceedings he has usurped the powers of Civil Court by nullifying the registered Sale Deed dated 22 August 1968.

13) Faced with the difficulty that the Additional Collector could not have entertained the Appeal filed after 42 long years, Mr. Godbole has attempted to salvage the situation by referring to the amendment incorporated in Section 257 of the MLRC which prescribed upper time limit of 5 years for filing of Revisions for the first time in 2016. He would submit that the Revision in question was filed by Respondent Nos. 2/3 prior to introduction of the said amendment to Section 257 of the MLRC. By amendment to MLRC, following proviso was added to Section 257:

14) I am not impressed by this justification sought to be canvassed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2/3. Even if there was no statutory time limit prescribed for entertainment of Revisions under Section 257 of the MLRC prior to 2016, it did not mean that the Revision could be filed at any time as per the convenience of parties. In absence of statutorily prescribed time limit, the Revision ought to have been filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the Mutation Entry certified on 21 November 1968 was not questioned by Shri Maruti Sonawane himself till his death. Instead of mounting an indirect challenge to the Sale Deed by questioning the Mutation Entry, he exercised a substantive remedy of securing back possession of the land by initiating proceedings under Section 59(b) of the MLRC. Section 59 of MLRC provides thus: