Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords, were aggrieved by an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 31 July 1991 in Revision Application No. MRT.P.V.7/91 (Tnc.B.125/1991). The MRT had remanded the matter to the Mamlatdar for reinvestigation on the point of delivery of possession of the suit land to the petitioners and to determine whether the petitioners still continued in possession. The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the MRT to entertain the revision, relying on the finality clause in Section 73 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The court examined Section 73 and found that it only provides for execution of orders for payment of money or restoring possession and does not contain any provision barring the revisional powers of the Tribunal. The court noted that the MRT's order was interlocutory in nature, remanding the case for reinvestigation, and did not finally determine the rights of the parties. The court held that the revision was maintainable and that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, should not interfere with such interlocutory orders. The petition was dismissed, and the petitioners were directed to appear before the Mamlatdar on 10 October 2005 to proceed with the reinvestigation. The court clarified that all contentions of the petitioners were kept open.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal - Finality Clause - Section 73 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to entertain a revision application against an order of the Mamlatdar, contending that Section 73 contains a finality clause. The court held that Section 73 only provides for execution of orders for payment of money or restoring possession and does not bar the revisional powers of the Tribunal. The revision was maintainable as the order of the Mamlatdar was not final and the Tribunal had the power to remand for reinvestigation. (Paras 2-4) B) Tenancy Law - Remand Order - Interlocutory Nature - Section 73 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The MRT remanded the matter for reinvestigation on the point of delivery of possession. The court held that such a remand order is interlocutory and does not finally determine the rights of the parties. Therefore, the High Court declined to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution, as the petitioners could raise all contentions before the Mamlatdar after remand. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain a revision application against an order of the Mamlatdar in view of the finality clause contained in Section 73 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the MRT had jurisdiction to entertain the revision and that the remand order was interlocutory. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Mamlatdar on 10 October 2005 for further proceedings. All contentions of the petitioners were kept open.
Law Points
- Finality clause in Section 73 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 does not bar revision jurisdiction of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- Remand order for reinvestigation of possession is interlocutory and not final
- High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227 is discretionary and not exercised against interlocutory orders
