Shri. Naresh Krishna Gaikar v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

vai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.9813 OF 2015 Naresh K. Gaikar

...Petitioner

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr.Vishal Kanade I/b Ashoka Law Firm for the Petitioner. Mr.A.R. Metkari, A.G.P. for the Stat - Respondent No.1. Mr.Kedar Lad I/b Mr.Tushar Pimple for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2018.

P.C. :- 1.

By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 12th August, 2015 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai rejecting the application below Exhibit - A-04 in Revision Application No.67 of 2013 filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5. The petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question from the successor of Dhondu Mhase, who had initiated the proceedings under section 32-M of the Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the said Act"). In the proceedings before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the said Dhondu Mhase was a party but has not appeared. 1/3

The Sub-Divisional Officer has already passed an order to proceed ex-parte against him. The petitioner is claiming through the successor of Dhondu Mhase, who is not representing his case before the SubDivisional Officer as well as before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

2.

In my view Mr.Kanade, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has rightly placed reliance on section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in support of his submission that the petitioner claims through the successor of the contesting party who is not appearing before the authorities, his rights may be affected if any adverse order is passed either by the Sub-Divisional Officer or by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

3.

In my view, the impugned order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 12th August, 2015 is totally overlooking the provisions of section 146 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and also overlooking the admitted fact that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property in question through the successor of Dhondu Mhase, who was issued a certificate under section 32-M of the said Act. The successor of Dhondu Mhase will be necessary party in disposing of the revision application filed by the respondent nos.2 to

5. The impugned order dated 12th August, 2015 is accordingly quashed and set aside.

2/3

4.

The Application below Exhibit - A-04 filed by the petitioner is allowed. The petitioner will be at liberty to intervene in the revision application filed by the respondent nos.2 to 5 i.e. Revision Application No.67 of 2013 and to participate in the said proceedings. 5.

Learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall decide the said revision application after allowing the petitioner to participate in the said revision application and without being influenced by the observations made and the conclusion drawn in the impugned order dated 12th August, 2015.

6.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any views on merit of the matter as to whether the petitioner has any right, title or interest in the property or not and the said issue is kept open. 7.

The writ petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

(R.D. DHANUKA, J.) 3/3