1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.5188 of 2009 Baptist Savier Corriea @ Kurte (Deceased) by Lrs Magdelene Baptist Corriea @ Kurte ... Petitioner versus Harishchandra Balkrishna Vertak & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. J. Reis with Mr.A.G.Toraskar for the petitioner. Mr.S.G.Karandikar for respondent no.1. Mr.H.P. Ghadigaonkar for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 17h June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 21st August 2008 passed by the Addl. Collector, Raigad granting permission u/s.43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act 1948 ( for short “BT & AL Act) and the order dated 15th April 2009 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) confirming the said order. 2 3. In a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale of an agricultural land, a decree for specific performance was passed against the petitioner and respondent no.3. In an execution petition, a contention was raised by the petitioner that the land was purchased by the father of petitioner u/s.32(g) of the BT & AL Act and therefore it could not be sold without the permission of the Collector. The Executing Court appointed respondent no.5 as a Court Commissioner for applying for the permission for sale. The Court Commissioner made an application and after hearing the parties, the Addl. Collector by an order dated 21st August 2008 granted the permission. That order has been confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. These orders form the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Reis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order was bad-in-law for two reasons. He firstly submitted that the respondent no.1 was not an agriculturist and sale of a land in favour of a non-agriculturist is prohibited by the BT & AT Act. The Collector therefore erred in granting the permission without first deciding an issue whether respondent no.1 was an agriculturist. Secondly, he submitted that the order specified and the sale deed was to be executed within six months from the date of the order. On Court Commissioner’s application the period was extended. That extension, according to Mr.Reis was illegal. 5. Section 70 of the BT & AL Act specifies what are the duties of a Mamletdar (now known as “Tahsildar”) Clause (a) of section 70 requires the Mamletdar to decide whether a person is an agriculturist. The power to decide whether a person is an agriculturist or not is to be 3 exercised only by the Mamletdar and not by the Collector. The Collector, therefore, while granting permission could not have decided whether the respondent no.1 was an agriculturist. In paragraph no.7 of the order, he has rightly observed that before the registration of the sale deed, the authority should verify whether the respondent no.1 was an agriculturist. At the time of registration of sale deed, respondent no. 1 was required to produce before the registering authority a certificate issued by the Mamletdar that he was an agriculturist. Counsel for the respondent informs that the respondent had produced such a certificate and on production of such certificate, the sub-registrar has already registered the sale deed. In these circumstances, the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 is not an agriculturist does not survive. 6. Relying upon a decision of the Single Judge of this Court in Shirish Govind Gangakhedkar Vs.Maruti Narayan Gaikwad, 2003(3) Mh.L.J.587, Mr.Reis submitted that this Court has upheld the order of refusal to grant extension of time to the purchaser for execution of a sale deed. In that case, permission was granted to the purchaser before 24th April 1992. Before that he did not complete the transaction. He made an application for extension of time after 24th April 1992 and in the mean while, the land had already been validly transferred in favour of a third party. On that ground, the Collector refused to extend the period for execution of the sale deed. It is in these circumstances that the Court upheld the order of the Collector refusing extension of time. The case is not an authority for the proposition that the Collector has no power to extend the time. On the other hand, the Court has observed that successive applications for permission for transfer are also 4 maintainable. It must therefore be held that the Collector has the power to extend the time granted by him for execution of a sale deed. Ofcourse, in a given case like the one in the case of Shirish Gangakhedkar Vs. Maruti Gaikwad(supra) where the land had already been validly transferred in favour of a person, Collector may refuse to extend the time. In the present case, there were good reasons for extending the time. Petitioner himself had challenged the order of the Collector granting permission before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He had also challenged the draft of the sale deed before the executing court. It was in these circumstances that the Commissioner was unable to execute the sale deed within the time specified in the original order and sought extension of time which the Collector has rightly granted. 7. No other point was urged. There is no merit in the writ petition which is rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)