WP.5963-88 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 5963 OF 1988 Nana Maruti Kokare ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Anil V. Anturkar, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Respondent/Talathi dated 4-11-1988, pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 20-9-1988 and which order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By an order dated 15-8-1984 the Tahsildar was pleased to issue notice to respondent No.4 and the petitioner herein, asking them to hand over possession of the suit property. 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner, herein, was the landlord of the property situate at Pondhawadi, taluka Indapur, district WP.5963-88 - 2 - Pune, bearing Survey No. 51/5, now converted into Block No. 227, admeasuring 1 Hectare 93 R and assessed at Rs.3.87. In the said property, respondent No. 4 was the tenant and order was passed under S. 32-G, in favour of respondent No.4 on 31-12-1967. The certificate thereafter was issued in favour of respondent No.4 under S. 32-M on 23-12-1970. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No.4 transferred the said property to few persons namely Mr. Sada Kesu Pawar, Maruti Kesu Pawar. The petitioner herein therefore, filed an application before the A.L.T. in which he alleged that respondent No.4 had sold the said property without obtaining prior approval under S. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ( for short “BTAL Act”). The petitioner had made party respondent to respondent No.4 as well as the other two persons, namely, Sada Kesu Pawar and Maruti Kesu Pawar to the said application. The Tenancy Avval Karkoon, Indapur allowed the said application and directed that action should be taken under S. 84-C of the BTAL Act and that the property should vest in the government. Against this order, an appeal was preferred by respondent No.4, Sada Pawar and Maruti Pawar before the Assistant Collector, Baramati. The Assistant Collector allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the A.L.T. WP.5963-88 - 3 - 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, preferred a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The revision application was allowed and the order passed by the A.L.T. was confirmed by the judgment and order dated 15-12-1984. 4. In the mean time, the petitioner had applied to the Collector under S. 43 of the BTAL Act, seeking permission to purchase the said land from respondent No.4. The said application was granted and according to the petitioner, he executed a sale-deed which was registered and the property was conveyed in his favour. It appears that thereafter the impugned order was passed by the Talathi. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Talathi had committed an error of law which is apparent on the face of record, by passing the impugned order against the petitioner who had lawfully purchased the said property. He submitted that the order of eviction was passed against Sada Kesu Pawar and Maruti Kesu Pawar and not against the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned AGP submitted that since the permission was not obtained under S. 43 of the BTAL Act, the A.L.T. had directed that the property should vest in the government. He submitted that this order being confirmed by the M.R.T., whoever was in possession, however, was duty bound to WP.5963-88 - 4 - hand over possession to the government. 6. After having heard the counsel for the parties, in my view, firstly, the petitioner ought to have made Sada Kesu Pawar and Maruti Kesu Pawar as respondents to the present petition. Secondly, in any case the Talathi could not have issued notice only to the petitioner and respondent No.4, but ought to have issued notice to the two persons who are aggrieved by the order, passed by the A.L.T. In any event, before passing the said order, the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 and the other two persons, namely Sada Pawar and Maruti Pawar ought to have been heard. The impugned order therefore, passed is clearly in breach of the principles of natural justice, since, admittedly, subsequent event had taken place after the impugned order was passed. Under these circumstances, therefore, notice dated 4-11-1988 issued by the Talathi, which is annexed at Exhibit “J”, at page 47 to the petition, is quashed and set aside. The Talathi is advised to issue a fresh notice to respondent No.4 and Sada Kesu Pawar and Maruti Kesu Pawar and pass an appropriate order after hearing them, on merits. . The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. [ V. M. KANADE J.]