Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, landlords of agricultural lands, challenged an order dated 27 April 1992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in a revision application. The MRT had partly allowed the revision by remanding the matter to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) for a de novo fixation of the purchase price. The dispute concerned three agricultural lands: Gat No. 569 (28 gunthas), Gat No. 560 (1 acre 7 gunthas), and Gat No. 581 (1 acre 7 gunthas). The ALT had earlier fixed the purchase price, but the MRT, without setting aside that determination, remanded the case. The petitioners invoked the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The court examined whether the MRT acted within its revisional jurisdiction. It held that the MRT exceeded its powers by ordering a de novo fixation without first finding any error in the ALT's order. The court noted that the MRT's order was without jurisdiction and quashed it. The petition was partly allowed, and the MRT's order was set aside to the extent of the remand. The court directed the ALT to proceed with the fixation of the purchase price in accordance with law, considering the earlier proceedings.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope of Remand - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - The MRT, in exercise of its revisional powers, cannot remand a matter for de novo fixation of purchase price without first setting aside the ALT's order on merits. The MRT's order remanding the matter was held to be without jurisdiction as it did not find any error in the ALT's determination. (Paras 1-10)
B) Tenancy Law - Purchase Price Fixation - Agricultural Land Tribunal - The ALT had fixed the purchase price after considering the relevant factors. The MRT's remand for de novo fixation was not justified as the ALT's order was not set aside. (Paras 5-10)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - The High Court, under Article 227, can interfere with orders of tribunals that suffer from jurisdictional error. The MRT's order was quashed as it exceeded its revisional jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) acted within its revisional jurisdiction in remanding the matter to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) for a de novo fixation of the purchase price without setting aside the ALT's earlier determination.
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition. The order of the MRT dated 27 April 1992 was quashed to the extent it remanded the matter for de novo fixation of purchase price. The matter was remitted back to the ALT to proceed with the fixation of purchase price in accordance with law, considering the earlier proceedings.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- scope of remand
- de novo fixation of purchase price
- jurisdiction of Agricultural Land Tribunal
Case Details
WRIT PETITION NO. 191 OF 1994
Mr. T. S. Ingale for the Petitioners, Mr. S. V. Sadavarte for Respondent No. 1a, 2b and 2c
Sadhashiv @ Bhairu Ganpat Patil (deceased by heirs: Shankar Bairu Patil, since deceased through legal heirs Shalini Shankar Patil, Krishnath Shankar Patil, Vinayak Shankar Patil; Dinkar Bhairu Patil; Smt. Janabai Bhairu Patil)
Mahadeo Krishna Warke (deceased by heirs: Narayan Mahadeo Warke, Smt. Saubai Mahadeo Warke, Tanaji Mahadeo Warke); Dakhu Gangaram Warke (deceased by heirs: Babu Laxman Warke (abated), Shamrao Laxman Warke, Shankar Laxman Warke); Dinkar Bhairu Patil
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) remanding the matter to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) for de novo fixation of purchase price.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (landlords) sought to quash the MRT's order dated 27 April 1992 and to uphold the ALT's earlier fixation of purchase price.
Filing Reason
The MRT partly allowed the revision application and remanded the matter for de novo fixation of purchase price, which the petitioners contended was without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) had earlier fixed the purchase price. The MRT, in revision, remanded the matter for de novo fixation without setting aside the ALT's order.
Issues
Whether the MRT acted within its revisional jurisdiction in remanding the matter for de novo fixation of purchase price without setting aside the ALT's order.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by ordering a de novo fixation without finding any error in the ALT's determination.
The respondents supported the MRT's order, contending that the remand was necessary for proper fixation of purchase price.
Ratio Decidendi
The MRT, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, cannot remand a matter for de novo fixation of purchase price without first setting aside the ALT's order on merits. The MRT's order was without jurisdiction as it did not find any error in the ALT's determination.
Judgment Excerpts
The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 27th April, 1992, passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'the MRT'), by which order, the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner was partly allowed to the extent of the matter being remanded back to the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) for a denovo fixation of the purchase price.
The MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by ordering a de novo fixation without setting aside the ALT's order.
Procedural History
The Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) fixed the purchase price. The petitioners filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), which partly allowed the revision by remanding the matter for de novo fixation. The petitioners then filed a writ petition under Article 227 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
