Harshal Manohar Mane v. Supadu Shenpadu Mali And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5063 OF 2016 Dr. Harshal s/o Manohar Mane Age 40 years, Occ. Medical Practitioner, R/o. Kishna Hospital, Kajgaon Road, Parola, Dist. Jalgaon ... PETITIONER (Affected person)

VERSUS

1.

Supadu Shenpadu Mali Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.

2.

Daga Gotu Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 2-1) Raju Daga Mali Age 48 years, Occ. Agri., 2-2) Vithoba Daga Mali Age 46 years, Occ. Agri.

2-3) Bhagwan Daga Mali Age 43 years, Occ. Agri 2-4) Dnyaneshwar Daga Mali Age 39 years, Occ. Agri.

3.

Dagubai Kisan Choudhari Since deceased through legal heirs 3-1) Nimba Kisan Choudhari Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.

4.

Zendu Bhaga Mahajan Since deceased through legal heirs 4-1) Shantaram Zendu Mahajan Age 62 years, Occ. Agri., 4-2) Dayaram Zendu Mahajan Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.

5.

Atmaram Bhika Mali Age 69 years, Occ. Agri.

6.

Bhika Chindhu Choudhari Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.

7.

Atmaram Zinga Choudhari Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.

8.

Ananda Ramchandra Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 8-1) Geetabai Ananda Mali Age: 60 years, Occ. Agri.

9.

Naginbai Motilal Jaiswal Age: 60 years, Occ. Agri.

10.

Phulsing Kisan Patil Since deceased through legal heirs 10-1)Bapu Phulsing Patil Age 45 years, Occ. Agri.

11.

Sahebrao Baliram Mali Age 50 years, Occ. Agri.

12.

Bhoju Sandu Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 12-1)Balu Bhoju Mali Age 46 years, Occ. Agri.

13.

Gorakh Sanpat Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 13-1)Prakash Gorakh Mali Age 36 years, Occ. Agri.

14.

Ukhardu Sampat Mali Age 65 years, Occ. Agri.

15.

Sow. Nirmalabai Subhash Mali Age: 40 years, Occ. Agri.

16.

Rambhau Narsu Choudhari Since deceased through legal heirs 16-1)Bapu Rambhau Choudhari Age 55 years, Occ. Agri.

17.

Narayan Sukdeo Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 17-1)Atmaram Narayan Mali (Died) 17/1/1) Anita Atmaram Mali Age 42 years, Occ. Agri.

18.

Shankar Bhaga Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 18-1)Sitaram Shankar Mali Age 63 years, Occ. Agri.

19.

Khandu Bhaga Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 19-1)Soma Khandu Mali Age 53 years, Occ. Agri.

20.

Rajdhar Sandu Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 20-1)Tapiram Rajdhar Mali Age 60 years, Occ. Agri.

21.

Atmaram Eka Mali Since deceased through legal heirs 21-1)Bhagwan Atmaram Mali Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.

22.

Santosh Shenpadu Mali Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.

R/o. C/o. Bhagwan Daga Mali Sagam Traders, Parola, Near Bhajimarket, Parola, Tq. Parola, Dist. Jalgaon Through their General Power of Attorney Holder 1.

Bhagwan Daga Mali Age 43 years, Occ. Agri.

2.

Santosh Shenpadu Mali Age 58 years, Occ. Agri.

Both R/o-Maliwada, Parola Dist - Jalgaon 3.

Nimba Kisan Choudhary Age - 50 years, Occ. Agri.

R/o Bahiram Galli, near Gajanana Mandir, Parola, Dist - Jalgaon (Orig. Applicants) 23.

Shree Samb Hari Hareshwar Shree Pataleshwar & Zapat Bhawani Trust Through A. Deepak B. Mangesh 24.

The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

... RESPONDENTS .....

Mr. B. R. Waramaa, Advocate for petitioner Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for respondent No.1 - caveator Mr. D. K. Rajput, Advocate for respondent No.23 Mr. S. K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.24 .....

CORAM :

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE :

4th MAY, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2.

The petitioner, purportedly aggrieved by an order dated 29th April, 2016 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Revenue, Maharashtra State in Review Application bearing DEV-3216Case No.223/J-6, whereunder, according to learned counsel ad-interim order has been passed straight-away without looking into various aspects involved in the matter and staying operation of order dated 5th May, 2014 passed by the then State Minister for Revenue, Maharashtra State in case No. DEV-1013/P.K. 290/L-4, pursuant to which concerned land had been deleted from Inam Class-III category and brought under revenue assessment and registered sale-deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner and others. 3.

Learned counsel further refers to that the claim of review petitioners before the authority is spurious for variety of reasons, and is absolutely untenable. Respondent No.23 is

registered trust established pre-independence and administered by trustees. The trust owns and possesses agricultural lands including the lands concerned in the present matter. Respondents No. 1 to 22 claimed themselves to be cultivators over the lands, however, their claim of tenancy stands rejected since tiller's day and relevant entries have also been appearing continuously since 1962 onwards. 4.

Thereafter, after following due procedure of law, the lands have been converted into a marketable land and accordingly, transaction has taken place. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that, however, suddenly the review application has been preferred before present Revenue Minister without impleading petitioner herein as party to the same. An order came to be passed on said review application without hearing concerned parties including present petitioner and without considering relevant aspects involved in the matter.

5.

He further submits that as a matter of fact, review applicants have filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction against present petitioner and the trust and this fact has been suppressed in the review proceedings before the authority. He

submits that, in this scenario staying the order passed way back in 2014 is absolutely illegal and unsustainable. 6.

Mr. Barde, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - caveator contends that in the review proceedings respondent No.1 is not averse to make petitioner a party though there is no order to make the petitioner a party to those proceedings. He further submits that in any case, ad-interim order does not become final automatically. It is open for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings before the authority before which the matter is pending. 7.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is getting affected by the impugned order.

8.

In view of aforesaid, it would be open for the petitioner to take up appropriate proceedings before the authority for his impleading in review application, and seek appropriate orders.

9.

It is expected that if at all petitioner approaches the authority, the entire process should be completed thereafter within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

10.

Having regard to aforesaid, at this juncture, it does not to be a stage mature enough calling for interference under the discretionary powers of this court.

11.

As such, with aforesaid directions, writ petition stand disposed of. Needless to refer to that all points are open for the parties. Rule is made absolute accordingly. ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ) sms