KISHOR GOVARDHANDAS TANNA Vs. MALHARI NIMBAJI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India relate to identical facts and arise out of common judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 26-6-1984 and, therefore, both the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) IN Writ Petition No. 4313 of 1984 the land in dispute is Survey No. 26/1 and 25/2 situated at village Sarasan, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad. One Parsu Tukaram Patil was in possession of the said land as tenant on 1-4-1957, more commonly known as tillers day, and as such became deemed purchaser under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "bombay Tenancy Act ). The purchase was effected in favour of Shri Parsu Tukaram Patil on 12-4-1969. He sold the said land in favour of one Shri Bhatia without seeking appropriate permission as required under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The proceedings were initiated under section 84-C by the competent revenue authority for setting aside the sale made by Shri Parsu Tukaram Patil in favour of Shri Bhatia and by the order dated 30-5-1981 the sale in favour of Shri Bhatia was set aside. On 11-11-1981 the Tahsildar, Khalapur issued proclamation for disposing of the said land comprising of Survey No. 26/1 and 25/2 as aforestated. In pursuance to the said proclamation the petitioner as well as few others applied for grant of land. An enquiry was conducted and the Tahsildar, Khalapur granted the said land on 30. 4. 1982 in favour of petitioner by fixing price of Rs. 19,440/ -. A complaint was made regarding the sale of the said land. On receipt of the complaint, the Collector, Raigad suo motu started review proceedings under section 76-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The Collector after hearing the petitioner by his order dated 4. 11. 1982 set aside the order of Tahsildar, Khalapur holding that the procedure as contemplated under the law was not followed while granting the said land in favour of the petitioner. The Collector, Raigad by his order directed the Tahsildar, Khalapur, to initiate fresh proceedings for disposal of land; dispossess the petitioner and refund the price to the petitioner. Upset by the order passed by the Collector on 4-11-1982, the petitioner filed revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was registered as Revision No. 248 of 1982. In the other Writ Petition No. 4314 of 1984 the land bearing Survey No. 24 situate at village Sarasan, Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad is the land in question. One Nana Malu Patil was tenant of the said land on tillers day and as such he became deemed purchaser. The purchase was effected in his favour. However, on 7-3-1968 Nana Malu Patil sold the said land to Shri Bhatia without obtaining prior permission as required under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act. The proceedings were initiated under section 84-C by the competent authority and on 30-5-1981 the said sale made in favour of Shri Bhatia was set aside. On 11-11-1981 the Tahsildar, Khalapur issued proclamation for disposing of the said land under section 84-C. The petitioner as well as few others applied for grant of land. The Tahsildar, Khalapur conducted an enquiry and on 2-5-1982 granted the said land in favour of the petitioner by fixing price of Rs. 11,130/ -. A complaint was lodged against the said grant made by Tahsildar, Khalapur in favour of the petitioner to the Collector, Raigad who started review proceedings based on the said complaint suo motu under section 76-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act. After giving notice, on 23-5-1983 the Collector Raigad set aside the order of Tahsildar granting the land in question in favour of the petitioner and directed the Tahsildar to initiate fresh proceedings for disposal of the land in accordance with law with further direction to him to take possession of the land in question from the petitioner and refund the price to him. The order passed by the Collector, Raigad, was challenged in Revision Application by the petitioner. Both the revision applications were heard by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal together and by the common order dated 26-6-1984 the Tribunal rejected both the revision applications and maintained the order of the Collector, Raigad.

(3.) MR. Dani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions urged that the suo motu review proceedings initiated by Collector, Raigad, under purported exercise of his power under section 76-A was not maintainable. According to him, the orders passed by Tahsildar, Khalapur granting lands in question to the present petitioners under section 84-C were not appealable orders under section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy Act and when the said orders were not appealable, no review could be entertained under section 76-A.