Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Anandrao Moghe and others, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Tahsildar, Digras and the Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, which held that a sale-deed executed by Kanha Namaji Nisande in favour of petitioner 1 in respect of agricultural field Gat 76/2 was illegal for want of prior sanction of the Collector under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The respondents 4 to 6, claiming to be legal heirs of Kanha Namaji Nisande and members of the Andh Scheduled Tribe, had applied to the Tahsildar contending that they were in cultivating possession and that the petitioners attempted to forcibly dispossess them. The Tahsildar and Additional Collector passed orders restoring possession to respondents 4 to 6. The High Court found that the petitioners were not heard before the orders were passed, violating principles of natural justice. The court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - The orders passed by the Tahsildar and Additional Collector restoring possession of agricultural land to the legal heirs of the transferor were set aside as the petitioners were not heard before the orders were passed, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 4-5)
B) Land Revenue - Transfer of Agricultural Land by Scheduled Tribe - Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The sale-deed executed by a Scheduled Tribe member in favour of a non-tribal without prior sanction of the Collector is void. However, the authorities must follow principles of natural justice before passing any order. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Tahsildar and Additional Collector restoring possession of agricultural land to the legal heirs of the transferor on the ground that the sale-deed was executed without prior sanction of the Collector under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are sustainable when the petitioners were not heard before passing the orders.
Final Decision
The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tahsildar, Digras for fresh consideration after hearing all parties. Rule made absolute in those terms.
Law Points
- Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Transfer of agricultural land by Scheduled Tribe member without prior sanction of Collector is void
- Principles of natural justice
- Right to be heard
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (04) 113
WRIT PETITION NO. 1556 OF 2022
Mr. R.J. Shinde for petitioners, Mr. S.M. Ukey, Addl.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2
Vijay Anandrao Moghe, Bharat s/o Anandrao Moghe, Sharad s/o Anandrao Moghe
The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad; The Tahsildar, Digras; Circle Officer, Saza Singad; Nirmala Babarao Nisande; Shankar Babarao Nisande; Kailash Babarao Nisande
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Tahsildar and Additional Collector restoring possession of agricultural land to legal heirs of transferor on ground that sale-deed was executed without prior sanction of Collector under Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of orders dated 17-6-2019 and subsequent orders restoring possession to respondents 4 to 6.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that they were not heard before the impugned orders were passed, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar, Digras and Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad held that sale-deed was illegal for want of prior sanction under Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and directed restoration of possession to respondents 4 to 6.
Issues
Whether the impugned orders were passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not heard.
Whether the sale-deed executed without prior sanction of Collector under Section 36 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code is void.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they were not heard before the orders were passed, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondents 1 and 2 (State) supported the impugned orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The orders passed by the Tahsildar and Additional Collector were set aside because the petitioners were not heard before the orders were passed, which is a violation of the principles of natural justice. The court did not decide on the merits of the transfer under Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are assailing the consistent and concurrent views of the Tahsildar, Digras and the Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad which have held that the sale-deed executed by Mr. Kanha Namaji Nisande in favour of petitioner 1-Mr. Vijay Anandrao Moghe in relation to the agricultural field assigned Gat 76/2, admeasuring 1.61 H.R. situated at Mouza-Vasantpur Kharda is illegal as being contrary to the provisions of Section 36 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Code).
The genesis of the orders impugned is an application preferred by respondents 4 to 6 to the Tahsildar, Digras dated 17-6-2019 contending that the said respondents are members of the Andh Scheduled Tribe and that the agricultural field in question was owned by and in possession of the grandfather of respondents Shankar and Kailash Nisande.
The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tahsildar, Digras for fresh consideration after hearing all parties.
Procedural History
Respondents 4 to 6 filed an application before the Tahsildar, Digras on 17-6-2019. The Tahsildar passed an order holding the sale-deed illegal and directing restoration of possession. The Additional Collector/Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad upheld the order. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Section 36
