Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Lala Dagadu Kale, challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik in RTS revision application No.194/2008 dated December 31, 2008. The dispute pertained to agricultural land bearing gat No.173 at village Paritwadi, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. Respondent No.5, Sukhdeo Shankar Kale, the owner of the land, filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 before the Tahsildar, Karjat, which was registered as case No.7/2001. The Tahsildar, by order dated 29.11.2001, directed removal of the impediment allegedly created by the petitioner in the way and permanently injuncted the petitioner and others from obstructing the road/access/way. The petitioner filed a review application before the Tahsildar on 12.12.2001, which was entertained and numbered as 1/2001. The Tahsildar passed an order on the review application. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Karjat, set aside the Tahsildar's order on review, holding that the review was not maintainable. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, who dismissed the revision. The High Court, in the writ petition, held that the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 does not confer any power of review on the Tahsildar, and therefore the review application was not maintainable. The court found no error in the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Revenue Law - Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 - Section 5 - Obstruction of Way - The Tahsildar under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 has jurisdiction to order removal of impediment in a way and grant permanent injunction. The order dated 29.11.2001 directing removal of obstruction and permanent injunction was passed by the Tahsildar, Karjat. (Paras 3-4) B) Revenue Law - Review - Maintainability - The Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 does not confer any power of review on the Tahsildar. The review application filed by the petitioner before the Tahsildar was not maintainable. The Sub-Divisional Officer's order setting aside the Tahsildar's review order was correct. (Paras 5-6) C) Revenue Law - Revision - Additional Commissioner - The Additional Commissioner, in revision, upheld the Sub-Divisional Officer's order and dismissed the revision. The High Court found no error in the Additional Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner erred in dismissing the revision application against the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer which had set aside the Tahsildar's order on review?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, 1906 does not confer any power of review on the Tahsildar, and therefore the review application was not maintainable. The orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Additional Commissioner were upheld.
Law Points
- Mamlatdars' Courts Act
- 1906
- Section 5
- Review
- Maintainability
- Revenue Jurisdiction
- Obstruction of Way
