Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vijayalaxmi Shrinivas Panditrao, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 20th August, 2019 passed by the Minister (Revenue) in RTS Second Revision No. 3818 of 2018. The Minister had rejected the petitioner's revision application, thereby affirming the order of the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Pune dated 13th October, 2017, which in turn had affirmed the orders of the authorities below setting aside the order of the Tahasildar, Budargad, Dist. Kolhapur dated 25th May, 2015. The subject lands, agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos.162/1-B, 162/2-B and 162/3 admeasuring 124 hectares situated at Mauje Minache, Tal. Bhudargad, Dist. Kolhapur, originally belonged to late Mr. Anantrao Narayanrao Panditrao, the predecessor in title of the petitioner. In the year 1975, late Anantrao had been served with a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, calling upon to show cause as to why the subject lands be not declared a protected forest. Proceedings were thereafter initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. These proceedings culminated in an order dated 6th September, 1991 in Appeal Nos.1 of 1990 and 2 of 1990, whereby the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal modified the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and declared that the predecessor in title of the petitioner was entitled to retain 124 hectares i.e. 310 acre land, being the agricultural land and the rest was to be acquired. The petitioner contended that the Minister failed to consider the material on record, including the earlier order of the MRT and the report of the Tahasildar, and thus the order suffered from non-application of mind. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the Minister had not applied his mind to the evidence and had mechanically affirmed the orders below. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Minister for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Protected Forest - Section 35(3) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Notice for declaring land as protected forest - The petitioner's predecessor was served a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, calling upon to show cause why the subject lands be not declared a protected forest. The proceedings culminated in an order by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal declaring that the predecessor was entitled to retain 124 hectares as agricultural land. (Paras 3-4) B) Forest Law - Private Forest Acquisition - Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Proceedings under the Act - The proceedings under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975, culminated in an order dated 6th September, 1991 in Appeal Nos.1 of 1990 and 2 of 1990, whereby the learned President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal modified the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer and declared that the predecessor in title of the petitioner was entitled to retain 124 hectares i.e. 310 acre land, being the agricultural land. (Para 3) C) Administrative Law - Revisional Powers - Non-application of mind - The Minister (Revenue) while rejecting the revision application failed to consider the material on record, including the earlier order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the report of the Tahasildar, and thus the order suffered from non-application of mind. Held that the revisional authority must apply its mind to the evidence and cannot mechanically affirm the orders below. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister (Revenue) erred in rejecting the revision application without considering the material on record and the earlier order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal declaring the land as agricultural.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 20th August, 2019, and remanded the matter back to the Minister (Revenue) for fresh consideration in accordance with law, directing that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing.
Law Points
- Section 35(3) of Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act
- 1975
- Scope of revisional powers
- Non-application of mind
- Consideration of evidence
