Case Note & Summary
This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute over evacuee properties in Lonavala. The original owner, Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu, migrated to Pakistan, and his lands were declared evacuee property. Following an auction, Respondent No. 3 Gulabai Desai purchased the property and obtained mutation entries. The appellant, Gurudassing Panjwani, was allotted other portions of the same survey numbers as an evacuee allottee. A conflict over the extent of their respective holdings led to multiple rounds of litigation before revenue authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner all ruled in favor of the appellant, canceling mutations in favor of the private respondents. However, the State Minister for Revenue, in a proceeding challenging the Additional Commissioner's order, set aside those orders and restored the earlier mutations. The appellant challenged the Minister's order in a writ petition, which a Single Judge dismissed. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant's counsel did not argue the merits of the property dispute but focused on the jurisdiction of the State Minister, contending that the Minister's order amounted to an impermissible second revision under Section 257 of the Code. The appellant relied on precedents of this Court to argue that no second revision lies. The judgment text provided is incomplete, and the final decision of the Division Bench is not recorded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Second Revision Not Maintainable - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Sections 249, 257 - The primary contention was that the State Minister for Revenue had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision after the Additional Commissioner's order, as it constituted a second revision which is not provided for under the Code. The appellant relied on multiple High Court decisions holding that a second revision lies only if expressly permitted. The court heard the submissions, but the final pronouncement is not included in the extracted judgment text (Paras 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Minister for Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain RTS 3402/Pra.kra.309/L-6, which was effectively a second revision against the Additional Commissioner's order under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Law Points
- Second revision not maintainable under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- distinction between appellate power under Section 249 and revisional power under Section 257
- power of State Minister for Revenue to entertain revision
- validity of orders passed without jurisdiction
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 138
Letters Patent Appeal No.55 of 2003 (against Writ Petition No.7477 of 2002)
P.K. Dhakephalkar for the appellant, Anil V. Anturkar for respondent No.2
Gurudassing Nawoosing Panjwani
The State of Maharashtra, Prem Hasmatraj Lalwani, Gulabai Gajanan Desai (dead), Anil Gajanan Desai (dead), Genu Baburao Kadu, The Addl. Collector & The Custodian of Evacuee Properties, Pune
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute over evacuee property allocations and mutation entries between the appellant (an allottee) and private respondents (auction purchasers and successors), leading to a Letters Patent Appeal challenging a Single Judge’s order that upheld the State Minister’s decision restoring certain mutation entries.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought to set aside the State Minister for Revenue's order dated 18.10.2002 and restore the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector, and Additional Commissioner which had canceled mutations and upheld the appellant's possession.
Filing Reason
The appellant filed the LPA after the Single Judge dismissed his writ petition, which had challenged the State Minister’s order allowing the private respondents’ revision and restoring mutation entries in their favor.
Previous Decisions
Various orders by revenue authorities: Sub-Divisional Officer canceled mutation entry 1836 (30.7.1985, confirmed after remand 29.10.1987); Additional Collector maintained that order (13.7.1993); Sub-Divisional Officer canceled mutations 2377 and 2394 (28.1.2000); Additional Collector dismissed appeals and confirmed (28.5.2001); Additional Commissioner dismissed revision (22.11.2001); then State Minister set aside all these and restored original entries (18.10.2002); Single Judge of High Court dismissed writ petition (24.4.2003).
Issues
Whether the State Minister for Revenue had jurisdiction to entertain RTS 3402/Pra.kra.309/L-6, which was effectively a second revision against the Additional Commissioner's order under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant's counsel argued that the Minister's order was without jurisdiction because the Additional Commissioner had exercised revisional power under Section 257, and the Minister's order constituted an impermissible second revision under the Code.
The counsel contended that the Minister incorrectly assumed jurisdiction by clubbing the appellate power under Section 249 with the revisional power under Section 257, and that the directions in Writ Petition No.5590 of 1999 were irrelevant.
The appellant relied on precedents of the Bombay High Court holding that a second revision is not maintainable under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, citing orders in Writ Petition No.4168 of 1998, LPA No.349 of 2000, and Writ Petition No.2084 of 1999, as well as the reported decision in Ramesh T. Gopalani v. Janata Sahakari Bank, 2000(3) MLJ 115.
Judgment Excerpts
the dispute between the parties is in respect of the area, as to what has been purchased in auction sale by the Respondent No.3 Gulabai Desai and what is the area allotted to the Appellant by the orders of the Deputy Collector and Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Properties.
the learned Counsel submitted that it is not necessary to scrutinize and decide the main controversy between the Appellant and Respondent in respect of the disputed property.
He submitted that under the Land Revenue Code the second revision is not permissible and relied upon the judgment delivered by the Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.4168 of 1998 dated 18.2.1999.
Procedural History
Lands originally owned by Haji Habib Tar Mohammed Janu, who migrated to Pakistan; property declared evacuee under Evacuee Properties Act and auctioned; Respondent No.3 purchased and mutation entry No.1836 made; appellant allotted other portions as evacuee allottee; conflict over area led to proceedings. Sub-Divisional Officer canceled mutation entry 1836 (30.7.1985), confirmed after remand (29.10.1987). Additional Collector maintained order (13.7.1993). Talathi made mutation 2176 showing property in Custodian's name. Revenue officers subsequently made mutations 2377 and 2394 again in private respondents’ favor. Collector directed SDO to take them in revision; SDO canceled them (28.1.2000). Additional Collector dismissed appeals and confirmed (28.5.2001). Additional Commissioner dismissed revision (22.11.2001). Private respondent approached State Minister who allowed and set aside all prior orders restoring pre-1985 entries (18.10.2002). Appellant filed Writ Petition No.7477 of 2002; Single Judge dismissed (24.4.2003). Present Letters Patent Appeal filed.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Sections 249, 257
- Evacuee Properties Act, 1950: Section 8(i)
- Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960: Section 154
