1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. L.P.A. No. 416/2010 in W.P.No. 3120/1990 (D) (Devidayal s/o Mohan Kachi (Saxena) through L.Rs. .vs. Additional Collector, Nagpur and ors. ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. A.H. Laddhad, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. D.P. Thakre, AGP for Respondents No. 1,2 & 4. Mr. P.S. Sadavarte, Advocate for Respondent no.3. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 21, 2010 1. Heard. 2. By this letters patent appeal, the appellants have challenged the order of the learned Single Judge in a group of writ petitions by which the learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petitions filed by the appellants after quashing and setting aside the order of the Additional Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 19.7.1987 and 16.7.1990 and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector/Sub Divisional Officer for a fresh decision on the appeals filed by Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyapeeth , on merits. The learned Single Judge directed that the matter be decided on merits and further directed that the Additional 2 Collector/Sub Divisional Officer should record separate findings in regard to the applicability of the provisions of Section 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 to the cases of each of the petitioners and to decide each case separately. The learned Single Judge has held that the appellant would not be entitled to re-agitate the question of the ownership of the property as they have admitted that the P.K.V. is the owner of the property and they are the lessee thereof. 3. Since the learned Single Judge had directed that the matter be decided within a period of six months, we are informed by Mr. Sadavarate, learned counsel for respondent no.3 – P.K.V. that the matter has been decided by the Additional Collector on 30.1.2010 after hearing the appellant who participated in the proceedings. In fact Mr. Sadavarate points out that the appellants being aggrieved by the order of the Additional Collector have also challenged the said order by way of revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which is pending adjudication. Mr. Laddhad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants does not dispute the facts stated by Mr. Sadavarte. 4. Mr. Laddhad, learned counsel for the appellants, however, submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the appellants are not entitled to agitate the question of ownership since the finding is based on mere admission. We do not find any substance in the contention particularly in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 which reads as under:- 3 “58. Facts admitted need not be proved- No fact need to be proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which, before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admissions.” 5. From para 3 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the appellants had admitted the ownership of the P.K.V. over the agricultural lands in the reply to the notice itself and had further admitted that they were the lessee of the land. Further it appears from the judgment that in the petitioners’ reply to the application filed by the P.K.V. under Section 36 read with Section 51 and 19 (1)(a)(iii) (d) and (e) of the Act of 1958, the appellants had filed separate replies and admitted that P.K.V. was the owner of the land and the land was situated within the limits of Nagpur city. The pleadings are not disputed before us. 6. In these circumstance, we thus see no error in the findings of the learned Single Judge. The L.P.A. is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE halwai