Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajaram S. Patil, challenged an order dated 22 November 2013 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) which had set aside an order dated 8 April 1999 of the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector had purportedly exercised suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 76A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to interfere with an earlier order dated 17 November 1997 of the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO, acting as delegate of the Collector, had declined the petitioner's application for permission under Section 63 of the Act for transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists. The Additional Collector took suo moto cognizance on 15 December 1998, which was beyond one year from the date of the SDO's order. The MRT set aside the Additional Collector's order on three grounds: first, that suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 76A can be exercised only where an appeal is provided under the Act and none was provided against an order under Section 63; second, that in any case, the proviso to Section 76A bars exercise of such jurisdiction after one year from the date of the order; and third, that Section 76A applies only to orders of Mamlatdar or Tribunal, not to orders of the SDO. The High Court upheld the MRT's reasoning, finding no infirmity. The Court examined Section 76A and held that the revisional powers can be exercised only against orders of Mamlatdar or Tribunal, and the proviso imposes a one-year limitation. The Additional Collector's action was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Suo Moto Revision - Limitation - Section 76A Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The Additional Collector took suo moto cognizance on 15 December 1998, beyond one year from the SDO's order dated 17 November 1997, and the MRT correctly set aside the revision as barred by the proviso to Section 76A - Held that no suo moto jurisdiction can be exercised after expiry of one year from the date of the order (Paras 3-6). B) Tenancy Law - Suo Moto Revision - Jurisdiction - Section 76A Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The revisional power under Section 76A applies only to orders made by Mamlatdar or Tribunal, not to orders made by the Sub Divisional Officer acting as delegate of the Collector - Held that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision (Paras 4-6). C) Tenancy Law - Appeal - Availability - Section 74 and Section 63 Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - No appeal is provided under Section 74 against an order under Section 63, and therefore the condition precedent for exercise of suo moto revisional power under Section 76A (that no appeal has been filed) is not satisfied - Held that the MRT correctly found that the Additional Collector could not exercise suo moto revision (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Collector could exercise suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 76A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 beyond the period of one year and against an order of the Sub Divisional Officer
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the MRT order dated 22 November 2013. The Court found no infirmity in the MRT's reasoning that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to exercise suo moto revisional powers under Section 76A against an order of the SDO, and that the exercise was barred by the one-year limitation under the proviso to Section 76A.
Law Points
- Suo moto revisional jurisdiction under Section 76A of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 is barred after one year from the date of the order
- and applies only to orders of Mamlatdar or Tribunal
- not to orders of Sub Divisional Officer acting as delegate of Collector
