Mohd Yakub Mohd Haider Patel (Died) Lrs. Mohd Ismail Yakub Patel And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3644 OF 2014 1.
Mohd Yakub Mohd Haider Patel (died) per his Lrs 1-A Mohd Ismail s/o Yakub Patel, age 79 years, occupation Pensioner, Residing at Bhagya Nagar, Osmanabad.
1-B Nawab s/o Yakub Patel, age 60 years, occupation Agriculture, Residing at above address.
1-C Ahmed s/o Yakub Patel, age 45 years, occupation and residence as above.
1-D Akbar s/o Yakub Patel, age 45 years, occupation and residence as above.
2.
Iftikaroodin s/o Khiyamoddin Sayyad (died) per Lrs:
2-A Sayyed w/o Anees Jahera, age 55 years, occupation household, Residing at Bhagya Nagar, Osmanabad.
2-B Sayyed Azharuddin s/o Iftikaroodin, age 38 years, occupation and residence as above.
2-C Sayyad Mazhurruddin s/o Iftikaroodin, age 30 years, occupation and residence as above.
Abdul Karim Khan Dulhekhan Pathan, age 68 years, occupation Pensioner, Residing as above.
...Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.
(2) 2.
The Principal Secretary and Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), Government of Maharashtra, Revenue and Forest Department, having its office located at Industrial Assurance Building, 1st Floor, G.T. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020.
The Deputy Director of Land Records, Marathwada Region, Aurangabad, having its office located besides Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad.
Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad, having its office located at Collector Office, Osmanabad.
Abdul Gani Shah Mohd Qureshi (died) per his Lrs:
5-A Abdul Karim s/o Abdul Gani, age 35 years, occupation trade, Residing at Gandhi Nagar, Osmanabad.
5-B Abdul Hamid s/o Abdul Gani, age 32 years, occupation and Residence as above.
5-C Abdul Alim Abdul Gani Qureshi, age 30 years, occupation and residence as above.
5-D Samad s/o Abdul Gani, age 24 years, occupation and residence as above.
5-E Ahmed s/o Abdul Gani, age 25 years, occupation and, Residence as above.
5-F Shakila wd/o Abdul Gani, age 60 years, occupation Household, residing at above address.
5-G Noor Jaha d/o Abdul Gani, age 37 years, occupation and Residence as above.
(3) 5-H Nazma d/o Abdul Gani, age 32 years, occupation and residence as above.
5-I Naseem d/o Abdul Gani, age 30 years, occupation and residence as above.
5-J Parveen d/o Abdul Gani, age 28 years, occupation and residence as above.
5-K Afreen d/o Abdul Gani, age 26 years, occupation and residence as above.
...Respondents
...
Mr. Hemant S. Surve, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. P.R. Patil h/f Mr. M.A. Thorbole, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5-A to 5-K.
...
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 31th JANUARY, 2020.
ORAL JUDGMENT:- .
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
2.
Heard fnally with consent of the parties.
3.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2014 rendered by the Principal Secretary cum Officer on Special Duty (Appeals), whereby the order dated 30.01.2012 rendered by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Aurangabad, is confrmed and the revision preferred by the petitioners is rejected. In view of the order which I propose to pass, only bare facts need be noted.
(4) 4.
Respondent 5 was the owner of survey no. 145/A ad-measuring 5.20 acre. In 1969, after converting the user of the said land to non-agriculture, respondent no.5 carved out fve plots and sold the same to the petitioners by registered sale deeds. The petitioners contend that alienation was completed in 1978 and after 29 years i.e. in the year 2010, the respondent 5 came up with a case that area admeasuring 481 sq.mtrs in excess of the area covered by the sale deeds is recorded in the revenue record. 5.
The petitioners contend that without preferring an application for condonation of delay, respondent 5 moved an application before the Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad seeking correction of the revenue record on the premise that the revenue record does not confrm with the sale deeds. Vide order dated 31.03.2010, the Superintendent of Land Records directed the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to conduct a fresh measurement. The petitioners challenged the said order before the Deputy Director, Land Records, Aurangabad. In the interregnum, on 30.03.2011 the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records measured the land complying with the directions issued by the Superintendent of Land Records. 6.
The appeal preferred by the petitioners came to
(5) be dismissed by the Deputy Director of Land Records vide order dated 30.01.2012. The order makes an interesting reading. It appears, that the contentions raised by the petitioners did not receive the consideration which a quasi judicial authority was expected to bestow. The Deputy Director of Land Records was apparently infuenced by the fact that in the absence of an interim order, the measurement was done and the Deputy Director of Land Records, therefore, assumed that the appeal is rendered infructuous, which is apparent from perusal of paragraph 1 of the operative order which reads thus:
"१) अपपीलददार ययांच अपपील हच जजिलहदा अजधिक्षक भूमपी अजभलचख बपीीड ययांपी वदाद जूमळकतपीजवषयपी फचरांचककपी करणच बदाबत जदांयक ३०.०३.२०११ ांच आदचकदाांच ांदारदाजपीांच सदादर कचलच असभां प्रत्तत पकरणदात उप-अजधिक्षक भूमपी अजभलचख उ्रूमदाांदाबदाद ययांपी सदर आदचकदानवयच जदांयक ३०.०३.२०११ ररजपी वदाद जूमळकतपीांपी ूमरजणपी करूां अहवदाल सदादर कचलदा असिलयदाांच प्रत्तत पकरण हच आज ररजपी वयपगत (infructuous) झदालच असिलयदाांच जांकदालपी ठचवणचत यचत आहच."
7.
The petitioners contend, and not without justifcation, that while their appeal was held infructuous, the Appellate Authority in essence upheld the fndings of the Superintendent of Land Records and the correctness of the
(6) measurement done on 30.03.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the operative order which read thus.
"२) प्रत्तत पकरणदात उप-अजधिक्षक भूमपी अजभलचख उ्रूमदाांदाबदाद ययांपी जदांयक ३०.०३.२०११ ांच ूमरजणपीांच ांचककपी अहवदालदाां्तसदार जवजहत कदायरपदतपीांदा अवलंब करूां अजपलदाारांच ांनदणपीककत खरचदपीपचक्षदा जदा्रतपीांच क्षच् प्रत्तत पजतवदादपी म्हहणजचां ूमभळ ूमदालकदाांच ांदावच ांनदजवणच बदाबत जांयूमदाां्तसदार कदायरवदाहपी करणच बदाबत आदचक दचणचत यचत आहचत.
३) अजपलदाार ययांपी वदाद जूमळकतपी जवषयपीांदा तययांच ांनदणपीककत खरचदपीखतदा पचक्षदा आखपीव पज्कचवरपील जदा्रतपीांच क्षच्दाांदा ूमदालकपी हक सक्षूम जदवदाणपी नयदायदालयदातभां जसद करूां घयदावदा."
8.
Dissatisfed with the order of the Deputy Director of Land Records, the petitioners preferred an appeal which is dismissed by the order impugned. The Appellate Authority noted the factual matrix and then recorded the submissions. However, the Appellate Authority has not considered the submissions and at any rate the ultimate conclusion is not supported with reasons. The only consideration appears in the concluding paragraph which reads thus:
"ूमदाझ्यदा सूमरर झदालचलच ूमचजखक व लचखपी य्तजकतवदाद जवजवधि ्रतरदावर झदालचलच जांणरय व सदादर झदालचलपी कदागदप्च यदाांच अवलरकां कचलच. सदर पकरणदाबदाबत जवजवधि
(7) ्रतरदावर झदालचलच जांणरय तसचां अजरददार व जदाबददार ययांपी जदलचलदा लचखखीय्तकतपीवदाद व ूमदाझ्यदा सूमरर सदादर झदालचलपी कदागदप्च ययांच अवलरकां कचलच. वदाददातपील जूमळकतपीबदाबत अपर आय्तकत, ांदाजकक ययांच आदचकदात करणतदाहपी फचरबदल करणयदाांपी आवशयकतदा जदसभां यचत ांसिलयदाांच खदालपील पूमदाणच आदचक दचणयदात यचत आहचत."
9.
I am satisfed that the Appellate Authority virtually abdicated its quasi judicial function. It is true that the Appellate Authority passed a confrmatory order. However, even a confrmatory order, particularly a confrmatory order in appeal cannot be unreasoned. The only observation is that on perusal of the record it is not necessary to interfere with the order impugned. The nonapplication of mind is further apparent from the fact that the Appellate Authority refers to the order impugned before it as passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik, while the order is passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records. 10.
The order impugned is manifestly erroneous and is, therefore, quashed and set aside.
11.
The matter is remitted to respondent 1 for De novo consideration and passing reasoned order after hearing the parties. The respondent no.1 shall do the needful within 90 days of the communication of this order.
(8) 12.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (ROHIT B. DEO, J.) Mujaheed//