Salim Noormohammad Saudagar v. Bapu Ganu Pawar Since Decd. Thr. Lrs. And ORS
Megha 12_wp_16249_2024_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.16249 OF 2024 Salim Noormohammad Saudagar
...Petitioner
V/s.
Bapu Ganu Pawar (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Krushnat Bapu Pawar and Ors.
...Respondents
______________ Mr. Nilesh Wable i/b. Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam for Respondent Nos.1A & 1B. Ms. Snehal S. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent-State. ______________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated: 16 April 2025.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges order dated 4 March 2020 passed by the Additional Collector, Sangli, rejecting appeal preferred by the Petitioner and confirming the order dated 11 September 2017 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Miraj (SDO). The SDO, in turn, had rejected the appeal preferred by the Petitioner and had confirmed the order dated 27 May 2014 passed by the Tehsildar. Digitally signed by MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB Date:
2025.04.17 15:10:50 +0530 MEGHA SHREEDHAR PARAB 1 of
Megha 12_wp_16249_2024_fc.docx 2) It appears that Respondent No.1 had filed application dated 11 August 2010 before the Tehsildar raising following contentions and prayers:
सर्व्हे नं ९२२/२अ म्णजे सध्याचा सर्व्हे नं.९५२ /४ मधील उत्तरेकडील २ एकर म्णजे ०८१ आर जमीन सन १९७१ पासून सन १९९० साला पय&त मालकी क्काने बापू गणू पवार े कशीत ोते. त्यात त्यांनी घरी बांधलेले आे. बापू गणू पवार मयत झालेनंतर सदर जमीन मालकी क्काने त्यांचे वारस अज3दार नं.१ व २ ेच कशीत असतात. त्यांचे वहिवाटीस कोणीी रकत केलेली नाी. तडजोडीचा ुकूमनामा असलेमुळे याकामी अहिपलाचा प्रश्न उद्भवत नाी. एम. आर.टी. कोल्ापूर यांचे हिद.०४/०२/१९७१ चे तडजोड आदेशाप्रमाणे जहिमनीचा कब्जा बापू गणू पवार यांना हिमळाला आे. मात्र त्या आदेशाप्रमाणे मसूल दफ्तरी म्णजे ७/१२ चे पत्रकी नोंदी करणेच्या राून गेल्या आेत. त्या करणेत येऊन अज3दार यांची नावे पोकळ असलेल्या जाबदार नं. १ ते ७ यांची नावे कमी करून दाखल करणेबाबत तलाठी हिमरज यांना आदेश ोणेस हिवनंती आे.
जहिमनीचा कब्जा जाबदार नं १ यांनी आपल्या यातीत हिदला आे. मात्र त्याचा अंमल गावदफ्तरी न झालेमुळे त्यांनी इतर जहिमनीचे बाबतीत जाबदार नं २ ते ७ यांची नावे दाखल करणेसाठी हिदले अजा3च्या आधारे सर्व्हे नं.९५२/४ यांस त्यांची नावे बेकायदेशीररीत्या दाखल करणेत आली आेत. ती कमी करणेत यावीत. 3) Thus, the prayer of the first Respondent before the Tehsildar was for correction of entries in the revenue records. Tehsildar however, exceeded the jurisdiction and granted something in favour of the first Respondent, which was never prayed for. The Tehsildar directed, by his order dated 27 May 2014, as under:- आदेश हिमरज येथील सध्याचा सव नं . ९५२ /४ या जहिमनीतील उत्तरेकडील ०. ८० आर जहिमनीचा कब्जा कै. श्रीमती चांदबी नूरमंमद सौदागर यांचे सध्याचे ७/१२ मधील वारसाकडून काढून घेऊन तो कै. बापू गणू पवार यांचे सध्याचे वारसा श्री. कृष्णात बापू पवार व श्रीमती इंदुबाई बापू पवार यांना देणेत यावा. 4) Thus, though the prayer before Tehsildar was limited to correction of revenue entries, he directed recovery of possession 2 of
Megha 12_wp_16249_2024_fc.docx of the land from the Petitioner and to hand over the same to the first Respondent. The Tehsildar has thus clearly committed jurisdictional error while passing order dated 27 May 2014. The SDO and Additional Collector have failed to correct the said blatant error committed by Tehsildar while dismissing Appeals preferred by the Petitioner.
5) In my view, Tehsildar ought to have restricted the remit of enquiry to the prayer made in the Application dated 11 August 2010. He could not have dealt with the issue of possession of the land. In fact the application filed before the Tehsildar contained a specific averment that the Respondent No. 1 had secured possession of the land and desired only mutation of his name to the revenue records by deletion of name of Petitioner. The Tehsildar however exceeded the scope of inquiry before him and directed removal of possession of land from Petitioner and handing over the same to the first Respondent. Therefore, orders passed by the Tehsildar, SDO and Additional Collector deserve to be set aside by remanding the proceedings before the Tehsildar for being decided afresh in the light of prayer made in Application dated 11 August 2010.
6) Though Mr. Nikam, the learned counsel appearing for first Respondents, has raised the issue of delay of four long years in filing the Petition, in my view since there is a gross jurisdictional error on the part of the Tehsildar in passing order dated 27 May 2014, mere delay in filing the Petition cannot be a 3 of
Megha 12_wp_16249_2024_fc.docx reason for shutting the doors of the Court on the Petitioner. This Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Once it is noticed that there is serious jurisdictional error on the part of the Tehsildar in directing recovery of possession in proceedings filed for correction of names in revenue records, this Court would not hesitate to entertain the present Petition by ignoring the objection of delay. 7) Petition succeeds partly. Order dated 4 March 2020 passed by the Additional Collector, order dated 11 September 2017 passed by the SDO and order dated 27 May 2014 passed by the Tehsildar are accordingly set aside. The proceedings are remanded before Tehsildar for being decided afresh in accordance with the prayers made in Application dated 11 August 2010.
8) All rights and contentions of the parties on merits are expressly kept open. Tehsildar shall proceed to decide the remanded proceedings in an expeditious manner. 9) With the above directions, Petition is partly allowed and disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 4 of