Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Maheboobsab Husainsab Ladaf and others, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 18th August 2010 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Appeal No. 11A/2010L. The dispute pertained to a land matter between the petitioners and the respondents, Putalabai Ghudusab Kalawant and others. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal dismissed their appeal without considering their application for amendment and without adjudicating the appeal on its merits. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the impugned order was not sustainable as it failed to consider the amendment application and did not decide the appeal on merits. The court set aside the order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing that the appeal be decided on its own merits after hearing all parties. The court also directed the parties to appear before the Tribunal on a specified date. The judgment was delivered by Justice S.S. Shinde on 1st August 2012.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Amendment of Pleadings - Natural Justice - The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dismissed the appeal without considering the petitioners' application for amendment and without deciding the appeal on merits - Held that the order is not sustainable as it violates principles of natural justice and the matter must be remanded for fresh consideration (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dismissing the appeal without considering the petitioners' application for amendment and without adjudicating the appeal on merits, is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 18th August 2010 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Appeal No. 11A/2010L is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3rd September 2012. The Tribunal shall decide the appeal on its own merits after hearing all parties. Rule made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Right to be heard
- Amendment of pleadings
- Remand for fresh consideration
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (08) 18
Writ Petition No.7097 of 2011
Mr. Nanasaheb N. N. Shinde for petitioners, Mr. S.G. Rudrawar for respondents
Maheboobsab Husainsab Ladaf and Mahamadsab alias Masudsab s/o Hasansab Ladaf (deceased) through L.R. A. Ajijsab Chandsab Ladaf
Putalabai Ghudusab Kalawant and Nivrutti Dasharatha Survase (deceased) through L.R. Sojarbai Nivrutti Survase
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in land dispute
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought setting aside of the impugned order dated 18th August 2010 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Appeal No. 11A/2010L
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the Tribunal dismissed their appeal without considering their application for amendment and without adjudicating the appeal on merits
Previous Decisions
The Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, passed the impugned order dated 18th August 2010 in Appeal No. 11A/2010L
Issues
Whether the impugned order is sustainable when the Tribunal did not consider the petitioners' application for amendment and did not decide the appeal on merits
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the amendment application and without adjudicating on merits
Respondents opposed the petition
Ratio Decidendi
An order passed by a quasi-judicial authority without considering an application for amendment and without adjudicating the appeal on merits is not sustainable and violates principles of natural justice. The matter must be remanded for fresh consideration.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition takes exception to the impugned order dated 18th August, 2010 in Appeal No. 11A/2010L, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, has not considered the application for amendment filed by the petitioners and also not decided the appeal on merits.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (Appeal No. 11A/2010L) which was dismissed by order dated 18th August 2010. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
