Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Rajendra Shivkumar Pawar and others, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 12th August 2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyan Division, in Tenancy Appeal No.9 of 2019. The Sub-Divisional Officer had rejected the petitioners' application objecting to his jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The appeal itself challenged an order dated 16th May 2017 passed by the Tahsildar, Kalyan, in proceedings under Section 32-P of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act). The petitioners contended that under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act, an appeal against an order of the Mamlatdar lies only to the Collector, and that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction. They relied on Section 2(2-E) of the Tenancy Act, which defines 'Collector'. The respondents, including the State, argued that the Government of Bombay by Circular dated 6th June 1951 had empowered the Prant Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer) to exercise all powers of a Collector. The court examined Section 74 of the Tenancy Act, which provides that appeals against orders of the Mamlatdar lie to the Collector. The court noted that the Government Circular dated 6th June 1951 specifically empowers the Prant Officer to exercise all powers of a Collector. The court held that in view of this circular, the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and the objection raised by the petitioners was without substance. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the challenge to the impugned order.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority - Section 74 read with Section 2(2-E) of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 - Government Circular dated 6th June 1951 - The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Officer to hear an appeal under Section 74, contending that only the Collector has such power. The court held that the Government Circular dated 6th June 1951 empowers the Prant Officer (Sub-Divisional Officer) to exercise all powers of a Collector, and therefore the appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer is maintainable. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Sub-Divisional Officer (Prant Officer) has jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Section 74 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948, when the Act provides that appeals lie to the Collector.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the Sub-Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in view of the Government Circular dated 6th June 1951 empowering the Prant Officer to exercise all powers of a Collector.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Sub-Divisional Officer
- Delegation of powers under Section 74
- Government circular empowering Prant Officer
- Interpretation of 'Collector' under Section 2(2-E)
