Case Note & Summary
The petition was filed by the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased original tenant, Baban Vishnu Shivale, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 14 September 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT). The MRT had allowed the revision application filed by the respondents-landlords (Anil Sukhleswar Markale and others) and set aside the order of remand passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO had earlier allowed the appeal of the deceased tenant and remanded the matter to the Agriculture Land Tribunal (ALT) for fresh consideration. The original order under Section 32F(1) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 had been in favor of the landlords. The petition was filed in July 2019, nearly three years after the MRT order. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding delay and laches, and also pointed out that the petitioners had made a false statement in the memo of petition that they were not aware of the proceedings before the MRT, whereas the record showed that they were represented by a counsel before the MRT. The court heard arguments on the preliminary objection. The petitioners' senior advocate argued that the delay was not intentional and that the petitioners were pursuing remedies before other forums. However, the court found that the petitioners had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay of nearly three years. The court also noted that the petitioners had made a false statement regarding their knowledge of the MRT proceedings, which amounted to suppression of facts and abuse of process. The court held that the discretionary relief under Article 227 cannot be granted to a party who approaches the court with unclean hands and after unexplained delay. Accordingly, the court dismissed the petition on the ground of delay and laches and for making a false statement. The court did not examine the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Delay and Laches - Petition filed after nearly three years from impugned order without satisfactory explanation - Held that unexplained delay and laches disentitle the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 227 (Paras 4-6).
B) Tenancy Law - Section 32F Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Purchase of Land by Tenant - Dispute regarding validity of order under Section 32F(1) - Held that the MRT correctly set aside the remand order of SDO and restored the ALT's order (Paras 7-9).
C) Civil Procedure - False Statement - Suppression of Facts - Petitioners falsely claimed ignorance of MRT proceedings despite being represented by counsel - Held that such conduct amounts to abuse of process of court and is a ground for dismissal (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and for making a false statement regarding knowledge of proceedings.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and for making a false statement regarding knowledge of the proceedings.
Law Points
- Delay and laches
- False statement
- Article 227 jurisdiction
- Section 32F Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (04) 128
WRIT PETITION NO. 12234 OF 2019
Mr. R. A. Thorat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rohan Barge for the Petitioners, Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
Balasaheb Baban Shivale and Dilip Baban Shivale (heirs of deceased Baban Vishnu Shivale)
Anil Sukhleswar Markale, Arun Sukhleswar Markale, Narendra Sukhleswar Markale, Dnyaneshwar Kachreshwar Markale
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a tenancy dispute.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the order dated 14 September 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, heirs of the deceased tenant, were aggrieved by the MRT order which set aside the remand order of the SDO and restored the ALT's order under Section 32F(1) in favor of the landlords.
Previous Decisions
The ALT passed an order under Section 32F(1) in favor of the landlords. The SDO allowed the tenant's appeal and remanded the matter. The MRT allowed the landlords' revision and set aside the remand order.
Issues
Whether the petition should be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
Whether the petitioners made a false statement regarding their knowledge of the MRT proceedings, disentitling them to relief.
Submissions/Arguments
Respondents submitted that the petition suffers from delay and laches as it was filed nearly three years after the impugned order without explanation.
Respondents submitted that the petitioners made a false statement on page 7 of the memo of petition that they were not aware of the proceedings before the MRT, whereas they were represented by a counsel.
Petitioners' senior advocate argued that the delay was not intentional and that the petitioners were pursuing remedies before other forums.
Ratio Decidendi
A party seeking discretionary relief under Article 227 must approach the court with clean hands and without undue delay. Unexplained delay of nearly three years and a false statement regarding knowledge of proceedings disentitle the petitioners to any relief.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition was filed sometime in July 2019. No notice was issued in the petition.
It was submitted that the petitioners had made a false statement on page 7 of the memo of the petition that they were not aware of the legal proceeding before the MRT.
In view of the above, the petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and for making a false statement regarding knowledge of the proceedings.
Procedural History
The ALT passed an order under Section 32F(1) in favor of the landlords. The tenant appealed to the SDO, who allowed the appeal and remanded the matter. The landlords filed a revision before the MRT, which allowed the revision and set aside the remand order on 14 September 2016. The petitioners (heirs of the deceased tenant) filed this writ petition in July 2019. The petition was listed for admission on 9 February 2024, when the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding delay and false statement. The court heard arguments on 8 April 2024 and passed the order on 12 April 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 32F(1)
