JUDGEMENT
A. B. Chaudhari, J. -
(1.)By the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-10-1985, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, amravati in Revenue Case No. 59/82/ bhankhedakhd-20/1985-86 as well as the order dated 30th October, 1987, passed by maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in revision Application No. Ten-A-166/1986.
(2.)The petitioner purchased field survey Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of mauje Bhankheda, District Amravati, admeasuring 6. 30 acres by registered sale-deed dated 16-5-1979 from Jaisingh Jagannathsingh rathod. In the year 1985, Sub-Divisional officer, Amravati initiated proceedings against him under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act) by registering Revenue Case No. 59/ (32) / bhankhedakhd-20/1985-86 on the ground that sale-deed obtained by him was not valid as the petitioner had not obtained permission from the collector/s. D. O. under Section 89 of the Act. The petitioner, however, stated that he is an agriculturist having land of his own at Kothewad in Gujrat State and was also doing business of dairy farming and as such he falls within the meaning of definition of agriculturist under the act. Petitioner also opposed the proceedings by raising preliminary objection that the jurisdiction to declare sale-deed invalid under any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act under section 122 was with Tahsildar and not with sub-Divisional Officer, and therefore, the proceedings initiated by S. D. O. were without authority of law. Sub-Divisional Officer, amravati, however, made an order on 4-10-1985 and invalidated the sale-deed in the name of petitioner for want of permission under section 89 of the Tenancy Act and directed that his land vested in the State.
(3.)Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Tenancy Act to the Collector, Amravati, who held that the appeal was not maintainable before him as the powers of Collector were exercised by the S. D. O. vide order dated 9-12-1985. Petitioner then preferred revision before maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur under section 111 of the Act and challenged the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati. Since there was delay in filing revision application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing revision. The Maharashtra Revenue tribunal rejected application for condonation of delay in filing revision as well as revision on the ground that the same was time barred. Being aggrieved by those orders, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.