Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2 The genesis of the proceedings resulting in the order dated 07/07/2015 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune lies in the application/appeal filed on 17/06/2012 by the Respondent No.8 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Phaltan. Before adverting to the said application/appeal, it would be necessary to refer to a few facts. The Petitioners herein have been declared as protected tenants in respect of the various lands and, an order under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ("Tenancy Act" for short) came to be passed in their favour by the ALT and Tahsildar. It seems that pursuant to the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act in favour of the Petitioners herein, 32M certificates were also issued in respect of the said lands. Acting upon the said orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, the names of the Petitioners were mutated in the revenue record in respect of the said lands. The said Mutation Entries are Nos. 10688, 11865, 15579, 12023, 12249, 15136 and 8276. The prayer clause of the said application/appeal filed by the Respondent No.8 sought the setting aside of the Mutation Entry No.15579 as also the order passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. It seems that though the relief in the prayer clause was restricted to the said Mutation Entry No.15579, in the body of the application a reference was made to the other Mutation Entries made in favour of the Petitioners herein. The said lgc 3 of 8 (902) wp-10603.16 application/appeal came to be allowed by the SDO by the order dated 06/05/2013 and the Mutation Entries Nos. 10688, 11865, 15579, 12023, 12249, 15136 and 8276 came to be set aside and a direction was issued that the entries be once again made in the name of Devasthan concerned. In so far as the order passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act is concerned, the SDO seems to have gone into the merits of the case of the Petitioners and held that no order could have been passed in favour of the Petitioners under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. A reference was made to the Notification dated 30/07/2010 in the said order dated 06/05/2013.

5 The principal contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners was that the Mutation Entries could not have been set aside by the Additional Commissioner as confirmed by the Additional Collector in view of the fact that the said entries were made on the basis of the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act which orders are intact till this day. It was also the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the revenue authorities could not have gone into the merits of the orders passed by the authorities under the Tenancy Act.

6 Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.8 would contend that what was in contention before the SDO in the application/appeal filed by the Respondent No.8 were the Mutation Entries and not the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. It was the submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent No.8 that in view of the Notification dated 30/07/2010 the orders passed under Section lgc 5 of 8 (902) wp-10603.16 32G of the Tenancy Act could not have been passed in favour of the Petitioners.

9 In so far as the appeal/application filed by the Respondent No.8 before the SDO is concerned, as indicated above, the Respondent No.8 had in the prayer clause of the said application sought setting aside of the order passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. This was obviously so in view of the fact that the Respondent No.8 was aware of the fact that the Mutation Entries were effected in favour of the Petitioners on the basis of the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. The question therefore arises is, whether the revenue authorities whilst exercising the jurisdiction in RTS proceedings could have set aside the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act by the Tenancy Authorities. The answer has to be obviously in the negative. If that be so, the order passed by the SDO dated 06/05/2013 setting aside the Mutation Entries which as indicated herein above are based on the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act could not have been passed. In view thereof the subsequent proceedings in fact were not maintainable. It was therefore for the Respondent No.8 to challenge the orders passed under Section 32G by filing appropriate proceedings under the Tenancy Act, if so advised. Since by the orders passed by the authorities in the RTS proceedings have the effect of setting aside the orders passed under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, the said orders have been passed without jurisdiction.