Balasaheb Kondiba Barathe And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4882 OF 2022 1.

Balasaheb Kondiba Barathe Age : 60 yrs, Occu : Agri, 2.

Sagar Balasaheb Barathe Age : 28 yrs, Occu : Agri, 3.

Navnath Gulabrao Mohare Age : 40 yrs, Occu : Agri, All R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, .. Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Maharashtra through the Collector Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar 2.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shrigonda - Parner Division, Ahmednagar 3.

The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Shrigonda, 4.

Uttam Namdev Mohare Age : 60 yrs, Occu : Agri, 5.

Pandurang Namdev Mohare Age : 64 yrs, Occu : Agri, 6.

Vitthal Namdev Mohare Age : 68 yrs, Occu : Agri, 7.

Krushna Namdeo Mohare Age : 32 yrs, Occu : Agri,

Respondent Nos.4 to 7 R/o. At post Kolgaon, 8.

Sarjerao Ramchandra Mohare Age : 50 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 9.

Atul Baban Barathe Age : 45 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 10.

Sou. Shobha Sarjerao Mohare Age : 45 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ghargaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 11.

Dilip Sopan Thite Age : 35 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Ghargaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 12.

Sopan Vithoba Thite Age : 60 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 13.

Ashok Dagadu Haral Age : 50 yrs, Occu : Agri, 14.

Dilip Dagdu Haral Age : 45 yrs, Occu : Agri, 15.

Eknath Antu Haral Age : 65 yrs, Occu : Agri, 16.

Yogesh Laxmanrao Lagad Age : 50 yrs, Occu : Agri, 17.

Akash Balasaheb Barathe Age : 30 yrs, Occu : Agri,

18.

Usha @ Kusum Balasaheb Barathe Age : 50 yrs, Occu : Agri, 19.

Dattatraya Sampat Kalaskar Age : 47 yrs, Occu : Agri, 20.

Vinayak Bajirao Sapate Age : 40 yrs, Occu : Agri, 21.

Suhas Sampat Kalaskar Age : 35 yrs, Occu : Agri, 22.

Sampat Sonba Kalaskar Age : 70 yrs, Occu : Agri, 23.

Hausabai Sampat Kalaskar Age : 65 yrs, Occu : Agri, 24.

Kailas Ganpat Kalaskar Age : 38 yrs, Occu : Agri, Respondent Nos.13 to 24 R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 25.

Kausabai Ganpat Kalaskar Age : 68 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Tandali (Kashti) 26.

Ganpat Sonba Kalaskar Age : 68 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Kolgaon, Tq. Shrigonda, 27.

Ramdas Ganpat Kalaskar Age : 40 yrs, Occu : Agri, R/o. Tandali (Kashti) .. Respondents.

...

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V.P. Latange AGP for Respondent - State : Mr. K.B. Jadhavar

Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 7 : Mr. V.P. Narwade ...

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 15-11-2022 ORAL JUDGMENT :

.

Rule. It is made returnable forthwith. Mr. K.B. Jadhavar, learned AGP waives service for the respondent - State and Mr. V.P. Narwade, learned advocate waives service for respondent Nos.4 to 7. At the joint request of the parties, the matter is heard finally at the admission stage.

2.

By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda Division, Ahmednagar passed in Revision Application No.170 of 2020 thereby confirming the order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the Tahsildar Shrigonda under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act.

3.

Even though the detailed submissions are made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I find that the petitioners were not granted proper opportunity of hearing at the time of decision of the proceedings before the Tahsildar. I have perused the original records of the case. The roznama shows that on

account of the absence of the plaintiff and the defendants on 18.03.2020, the proceedings were adjourned to 27.03.2020. Thereafter the roznama reflects the next date as 29.07.2020 when the plaintiff and their advocate were shown to be present and the defendants were shown as absent. The roznama does not reflect as to how the date of 29.07.2020 was fixed for hearing of the proceedings. However, the original record contains the notice dated 13.07.2020 fixing the date for final hearing of the proceedings as 29.07.2020. The records however, do not indicate that the said notice was served on the petitioners. On this count, apparently the petitioners did not remain present on 29.07.2020 when the proceedings were finally heard and the judgment was reserved.

4.

In the aforestated manner, the order is passed by the Tahsildar without grant of proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Though this aspect was highlighted in the revision petition filed before the Sub Divisional Officer, this aspect is completely ignored in the order dated 31.12.2021. Consequently, the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar are vitiated on account of non-compliance with the principles of natural justice. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

(i) The order passed by the Tahsildar, Shrigonda dated 07.08.2020 in Wahiwat Case No.22 of 2019 and order dated 31.12.2021 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Shrigonda Division in Revision Application No.170 of 2020 are set aside.

(ii) The proceedings bearing Wahiwat Case No.22 of 2019 is restored on the file of Tahsildar, Shrigonda. (iii) The Tahsildar, Shrigonda shall decide Wahiwat Case No.22 of 2019 afresh after granting full and complete opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

5.

With these directions, the writ petition is partly allowed. Rule is partly made absolute.

( SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. ) GGP