Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Subhash Shripati Patil and others, filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 21.7.2011 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1991. The trial court had rejected their application for referring the matter to the Settlement Officer or Superintendent of Land Records under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. The background involves a suit where issue no.4 was framed by the High Court in an earlier appeal (Appeal from Order No.1029 of 2005 decided on 6.6.2006) to determine whether a sale deed of 1967 was barred by the Act. The trial court initially referred this issue to the competent authority on 5.10.2007. In response, the Tahsildar, Hatkanangale, by communication dated 22.2.2010, opined that transactions during 15.11.1964 to 24.8.1977 were null and void under Section 31 of the Act. The petitioners then applied to refer the matter to the Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records, citing a circular dated October 2004 which designated these authorities as competent. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that no objection was raised earlier. The High Court found that there was nothing to show that the Tahsildar was appointed as Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records. The court held that the trial court should have first inquired whether the Tahsildar was the competent authority under the circular. The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the application was restored for fresh decision after such inquiry.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Reference to Competent Authority - Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 - Sections 31, 36(a)(i), 36(b)(i) - The trial court rejected the application for reference to the Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records, despite a circular designating them as competent authorities, without verifying whether the Tahsildar who had earlier communicated was so designated. Held that the trial court must first inquire into the authority's competence before dismissing the application (Paras 5-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the petitioners' application for referring the matter to the Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, without first ascertaining whether the Tahsildar who passed the order dated 22.2.2010 was the competent authority under the Circular dated October 2004.
Final Decision
Writ Petition allowed. Order dated 21.7.2011 passed below Exhibit 106/5 in Regular Civil Suit No.65 of 1991 is quashed and set aside. The application is restored to be decided afresh after the trial court makes an inquiry as to whether the order dated 22.2.2010 was passed by the competent authority under the circular dated October 2004 and whether the Tahsildar, Hatkanangale was designated as Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records.
Law Points
- Competent authority under Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act
- Reference to Settlement Officer
- Circular dated October 2004
- Designation of Tahsildar as Consolidation Officer or Superintendent of Land Records
