Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged an order of the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, dismissing a tenancy revision application as not maintainable. The dispute arose from proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Initially, an order was passed by the Tahasildar on 25 November 1994 in proceedings under Section 70(b) read with Section 32G. The petitioners appealed, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, allowed the appeal on 22 May 2003, setting aside the Tahasildar’s order. Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 then filed fresh applications under Section 32G in 2006, which the Tahasildar dismissed on 31 December 2009 on merits and also holding that the earlier appellate order had attained finality. The Sub-Divisional Officer, acting suo motu under Section 76A, allowed a revision by order dated 21 May 2011. The petitioners challenged this order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 76, but the Tribunal, relying on the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shireen Sami Gadiali v. Spenta Coop. Hsg. Soc. Ltd., dismissed the revision as not maintainable, holding that a second revision was barred. The petitioners contended that the Full Bench judgment was inapplicable because it interpreted Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which has a different scheme. They argued that Sections 76 and 76A of the BT & AL Act are independent revisional provisions and that the legislature, despite adding Section 76A, retained the MRT’s jurisdiction under Section 76 to entertain revisions against orders of the Collector. The contesting respondents conceded that the Full Bench judgment was not applicable but raised alternative arguments: that the Tahasildar’s order of 31 December 2009 was actually under Section 70(b) and not appealable, that the Sub-Divisional Officer’s order was under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and not under Section 76A, and therefore no further revision lay before the MRT. The petitioners rebutted these submissions, relying on the Division Bench decision in Ebrahim Yusuf Lambe v. Abdul Razak Mulla, which held that even if an application is under Section 70(b), the order may be referable to Section 4 and is appealable. The Court, after considering the rival submissions, held that the Full Bench judgment in Shireen Sami Gadiali was indeed not applicable. The Court noted that the Full Bench had examined the specific provision of Section 154 of the MCS Act, which expressly barred a second revision, while the BT & AL Act contains no such bar. The Court observed that Section 76 and Section 76A serve different purposes; Section 76A was introduced to empower the Collector to correct manifestly wrong orders where no appeal had been filed, but this did not eclipse the MRT’s revisory power under Section 76. The Court found that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal misapplied the Full Bench precedent. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the revision application was held to be maintainable. The Court did not examine the merits of the tenancy dispute and directed the Tribunal to decide the revision on its merits. The rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Revision Maintainability under BT & AL Act - Effect of Prior Suo Motu Revision - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 76, 76A - The Full Bench decision in Shireen Sami Gadiali (2011 (3) Mh.L.J. 486) interpreting Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to bar a second revision is not applicable to proceedings under the BT & AL Act as the statutory schemes are materially different; Sections 76 and 76A of the BT & AL Act establish independent revisional jurisdictions and the existence of a suo motu revision order under Section 76A does not preclude a further revision under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - Held, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in dismissing the revision application as not maintainable; the revision application is maintainable and must be heard on merits (Paras 10-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in suo motu revision under Section 76A of the said Act was maintainable, considering the Full Bench judgment in Shireen Sami Gadiali.
Final Decision
The Court held that the Full Bench judgment in Shireen Sami Gadiali is not applicable to the BT & AL Act, 1948 because it interpreted Section 154 of the MCS Act, 1960, which has a different scheme. Sections 76 and 76A of the BT & AL Act create independent revisional jurisdictions, and a revision under Section 76 is maintainable against an order passed in suo motu revision under Section 76A. The impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was set aside, the revision application was held to be maintainable, and the Tribunal was directed to decide the revision on merits. Rule was made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b).
Law Points
- Revision under Section 76 of BT & AL Act
- 1948 is maintainable against an order passed in suo motu revision under Section 76A
- Section 76 and Section 76A are independent revisional jurisdictions
- Full Bench judgment in Shireen Sami Gadiali concerning Section 154 of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act
- 1960 is inapplicable to BT & AL Act proceedings
- Section 76A does not bar a revision under Section 76
- even an order under Section 70(b) may be appealable if referable to Section 4 of the Act
