Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Nago Hari Zangte and others, filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner which set aside the Tahsildar's order granting them a right of way through the fields of respondents 6 and 7. The petitioners had applied to the Tahsildar claiming a right of way through the southern side of Gat Nos.141/1, 141/2, 137 and 138. The Tahsildar allowed the application on 7th September 2007. The petitioners relied on an award dated 27th January 2008 from the Loknyayalaya, which recorded that the parties agreed the Tahsildar would examine the factual position on the spot and recommend a way. Subsequently, respondent no.5 and his wife filed a civil suit under Section 143(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 challenging the Tahsildar's order of 30th June 2009 granting the right of way. The Additional Collector allowed the appeal of respondents 5, 6 and 7, setting aside the Tahsildar's order and remitting the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry and decision. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the petitioners' revision. The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Tahsildar's order was passed without notice to the respondents and without proper enquiry. The court held that the Additional Collector was justified in remanding the matter for fresh enquiry to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice. The petition was dismissed, and the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner were upheld.
Headnote
A) Right of Way - Natural Justice - Remand for Fresh Enquiry - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Section 143(4) - Petitioners claimed right of way through respondents' fields; Tahsildar granted way without notice to respondents; Additional Collector set aside order and remanded for fresh enquiry; Additional Commissioner upheld remand; High Court dismissed petition, holding that remand was proper to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice and proper enquiry (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the Tahsildar's order granting right of way and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner. The court found that the Tahsildar's order was passed without notice to the respondents and without proper enquiry, and the remand for fresh enquiry was justified to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.
Law Points
- Right of way
- Natural justice
- Remand
- Opportunity of hearing
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 143(4)
- Loknyayalaya award
- Civil suit
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (11) 87
Writ Petition No.2977/2012
Shri A.B. Mirza for petitioners, Ms Tajwar Khan for respondents 1 to 4, Shri M.P. Kariya for respondents 5 and 6
Nago Hari Zangte, Shaikh Nazim Abdul Sattar, Shaikh Munazzim Abdul Sattar
State of Maharashtra, Collector Yavatmal, SubDivisional Officer Kelapur, Tahsildar Ralegaon, Bhaurao Vithoba Sontakke, Subhash Namdeo Yerane, Nilkanth Krushnaji Deshmukh (dead) through L.R. Ravindra Nilkanth Deshmukh
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging orders of Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner in a right of way dispute under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the orders of the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner which set aside the Tahsildar's order granting right of way and remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed right of way through respondents' fields; Tahsildar granted way; respondents appealed; Additional Collector set aside order and remanded; Additional Commissioner upheld remand; petitioners challenged these orders.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar allowed application on 7th September 2007; Additional Collector allowed appeal on 30th June 2009? (order date not clear); Additional Commissioner dismissed revision.
Issues
Whether the Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner erred in setting aside the Tahsildar's order granting right of way and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the Tahsildar's order was based on the Loknyayalaya award and should not have been set aside.
Respondents argued that the Tahsildar's order was passed without notice and without proper enquiry.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that when an order is passed without notice and without proper enquiry, the appellate authority is justified in setting aside the order and remanding the matter for fresh enquiry to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Collector by which the appeal filed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7 is allowed and the matter is remitted to the SubDivisional Officer for fresh enquiry and decision.
The Tahsildar by the order dated 7th September, 2007 allowed the application filed by the petitioners and granted right of way as sought by the petitioners.
The Additional Collector was justified in setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and remitting the matter for fresh enquiry and decision.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed application before Tahsildar claiming right of way; Tahsildar allowed application on 7th September 2007; respondents 5,6,7 appealed to Additional Collector; Additional Collector allowed appeal and remanded matter to SubDivisional Officer on 30th June 2009?; petitioners filed revision before Additional Commissioner; Additional Commissioner dismissed revision; petitioners filed writ petition in High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 143(4)
