Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shankar Sidram Patil, was the landlord of certain agricultural land. The Thasildar, by order dated 21st February 1983, held that the tenant (respondent) was not willing to purchase the land under Section 32-G(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, and declared the purchase ineffective. The tenant appealed, and the appellate authority (Assistant Tahsildar) by order dated 25th February 1985 remanded the matter back to the Thasildar for fresh disposal according to law. The petitioner, aggrieved by the remand order, filed a revision before the higher authority, which was dismissed for default on 8th April 1988. An application for restoration was also dismissed. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The High Court, after considering the facts, held that this was not a fit case for exercising extraordinary jurisdiction because both parties would have an opportunity of hearing before the Assistant Tahsildar upon remand. The Court discharged the rule and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Purchase of Land by Tenant - Section 32-G(3) of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 - Remand Order - The Thasildar held the tenant not willing to purchase land and declared purchase ineffective. The appellate authority remanded the matter for fresh disposal. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that both parties would have an opportunity of hearing before the Assistant Tahsildar. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with a remand order passed by the appellate authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.
Final Decision
Rule discharged. No order as to costs. The High Court declined to interfere, holding that both parties would have an opportunity of hearing before the Assistant Tahsildar.
Law Points
- Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 not exercised when alternative remedy available
- Remand order not interfered with when both parties get hearing opportunity
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 174
Writ Petition No.1147 of 1991
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Varsha Palav, for the Petitioner; Mr. S.M. Sabrad, for the Respondent
Shri Shankar Sidram Patil
Shri Ganpati Baswant Naukudkar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a remand order passed by the appellate authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (landlord) sought to quash the remand order and restore the Thasildar's order declaring the purchase ineffective.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the remand order of the appellate authority and the dismissal of his revision and restoration application.
Previous Decisions
Thasildar's order dated 21-02-1983 held tenant not willing to purchase land; appellate authority remanded on 25-02-1985; revision dismissed for default on 08-04-1988; restoration application dismissed.
Issues
Whether the High Court should interfere with a remand order passed by the appellate authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the remand order was erroneous and that the Thasildar's order should be restored.
Respondent supported the remand order, contending that the matter required fresh consideration.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court will not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with a remand order when both parties will have an opportunity of hearing before the lower authority upon remand.
Judgment Excerpts
In my opinion this would not be a fit case for this Court to exercise the extra ordinary jurisdiction considering that both the petitioner and respondent will have an opportunity of having the hearing before the Assistant Tahsildar.
Procedural History
Thasildar order (21-02-1983) -> Appeal to Assistant Tahsildar (remand on 25-02-1985) -> Revision dismissed for default (08-04-1988) -> Restoration application dismissed -> Writ Petition No.1147 of 1991 filed in Bombay High Court -> Dismissed on 12-01-2005.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958: 32-G(3)
