Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged an order of the Minister (Revenue) recalling an earlier order that had deleted the remark 'Devasthan Inam Warag III' from revenue records pertaining to property of a public religious trust. The petitioner, Ashok Namdev Kamble, had originally applied for deletion and obtained an ex parte order on 3 July 2014 without impleading the Western Maharashtra Devasthan Committee, which managed the trust. The Collector, as ex officio President of the Committee, filed an application for recall of that order, arguing that the Committee was a necessary party and had not been heard. On 24 January 2017, the Minister allowed the recall on the ground that the earlier order violated principles of natural justice. The petitioner contended that the Minister lacked power of review and that the recall petition was filed beyond the 90-day limitation under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code without a condonation of delay application. The court analyzed the nature of the recall and held that it constituted a procedural review, not a substantive review on merits. Relying on Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, the court observed that the power to recall a palpably erroneous order passed in breach of natural justice is inherent and exists ex debito justitiae, regardless of any statutory review provision. It distinguished this from a substantive review, which requires specific conferral and is subject to limitation. Therefore, the Minister had jurisdiction to recall the order, and the limitation under Section 258 did not apply. The court further emphasized that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is discretionary and aims to advance justice, not thwart it. Even if a technical legal error existed, the High Court may decline relief if granting it would defeat substantial justice. Here, the recall corrected a fundamental procedural irregularity and protected the interests of the Devasthan, which, as a religious endowment, deserved vigilant protection as per the Supreme Court’s decision in Chenchu Rami Reddy. Consequently, the court disposed of the petition, refusing to set aside the recall order, but directed that the petitioner’s original deletion application be heard afresh on merits after impleading the Devasthan Committee and affording all parties an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was granted four weeks to amend the application. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Procedural Review - Inherent Power of Recall - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - An authority possesses inherent power to recall an order passed without impleading a necessary party and in breach of principles of natural justice, which constitutes procedural review and not substantive review under Section 258. Held that the Minister (Revenue) had jurisdiction to recall the ex parte order dated 3 July 2014 as it was passed without hearing the Devasthan Committee (Paras 10-12). B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Discretionary Relief - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227 - The High Court under writ jurisdiction may refuse to interfere even if a legal error is pointed out, if the impugned order advances substantial justice and rectifies a procedural irregularity. Held that the writ petition is disposed of with directions to hear the deletion application afresh after impleading necessary party, upholding the recall (Paras 14-17, 18-21). C) Property Law - Religious Endowments - Duty of Vigilance - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Property of charitable and religious institutions must be jealously protected, and public officials must exercise exemplary vigilance. Held that the Collector’s application for recall was justified to safeguard the Devasthan’s interests (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Minister (Revenue) had the power to recall his earlier order deleting the remark 'Devasthan Inam Warag III' from revenue records, despite the absence of explicit review power and non-compliance with the limitation period under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?
Final Decision
The writ petition was disposed of. The impugned recall order dated 24 January 2017 was not interfered with. The petitioner was granted liberty to amend his original deletion application within four weeks to implead the Western Maharashtra Devasthan Samiti, and the Minister was directed to consider the application afresh on merits after hearing all parties. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Minister (Revenue) has inherent power to recall order passed in breach of natural justice
- Distinction between procedural review and substantive review
- Section 258 MLRC limitation applies only to substantive review
- Writ jurisdiction discretionary and may be refused to prevent injustice
- Devasthan property must be jealously protected
