1 wp6439group.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6439 OF 2010 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6443 OF 2010 ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO.6446 OF 2010 Amir J. Ali & Anr .. Petitioners versus Madhusudan Keshav Datar & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Pratap Patil and Mr.G.S.Koli for the petitioners. Mr.S.J.Ghogre for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 25th July 2011. P.C.: . These three petitions can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 2 The Writ Petition No.6439 of 2010 is directed against an order passed on 24th June 1999 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Panvel in Tenancy Appeal No.13 of 1997. 2 wp6439group.doc 3 The Writ Petition No.6443 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.6446 of 2010, challenge the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which sets aside permissions granted under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The permissions were granted on 30th June 1997 and 13th August 1997. 4 It is the contention of Mr.Patil appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the recorded tenant in respect of these lands was one Hasan Haji Miya Shaikh (Teli). However, he died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Tribunal and his heirs were not brought on record. Be that as it may, this Hasan Shaikh had successfully initiated the proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. By order dated 6th May 1963, the lands in dispute were sold to Hasan Shaikh. The petitioners claim to be Chief Promoter of Taloja Parvatiya Vriksha Lagwad and Samajik Vanikaran Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Wawanje, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. It is their case that the permissions under section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were granted to said Hasan Shaikh and that is how the lands were transferred, sold and acquired by this Chief Promoter. In these circumstances, without any notice to the Chief Promoter and without hearing them, the permission under section 32G 3 wp6439group.doc came to be set aside. This order was passed on 24th June 1999. 5 As a result of setting aside of the order under section 32G of the said Act, the revision applicants who are contesting respondents before me and who are represented by Mr.Ghogare, filed revision application challenging the permissions under section 43 dated 30th June 1997 and 13th August 1997. These permissions have been set aside by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Therefore, aggrieved by these orders of the Tribunal, the instant petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6 Mr.Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the requirement of the Act being satisfied and the tenant being deemed purchaser as on the tiller’s day, all that remained was fixation of purchase price. Those proceedings were initiated under section 32G of the Act way back in the year 1963. Thus, the recorded tenant became deemed purchaser and was entitled to deal with the land as an owner thereof. He has dealt with the same in that capacity and transferred and sold the same to the petitioners by diverse sale deeds. In these circumstances, the petitioners stepped into his shoes. Once they stepped into his shoes, then, it is for their benefit that the permission under section 43 of the Act was obtained by the said recorded tenant. After the permission was obtained and 4 wp6439group.doc which fact was known to the Sub Divisional Officer as it appeared on the record, the said Sub Divisional Officer should have given notice to the petitioners and heard them. Having not heard them, the order dated 24th June 1999 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is bad in law and the same be set aside. 7 It is also contended by him that a Civil Suit being No.166 of 2009 is filed by the present petitioners against their vendor who was the recorded tenant. It is contended by Mr.Patil that the said vendor/recorded tenant remained absent and that is how 32G permission came to be set aside. Further, the petitioners interests were not protected by the recorded tenant even before the Revenue Tribunal. As a result of all this, the petitioners could not point out successfully that the lands in question were not Devsthan Inam land and name of Laxmi Narayan Dev is not recorded as a holder of the property. For all these reasons and particularly when the sale deeds covered a vast track of land whereas the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer and Revenue Tribunal were restricted to Survey No.17/3 and Survey No.17/4 and the permissions are qua only these lands and not in respect of the others, the same be not interfered with. 8 It is difficult to accept the argument of Mr.Patil and particularly in this 5 wp6439group.doc case as to whether the proceedings under section 32G being set aside, the permissions obtained by the recorded tenant in respect of said transaction remained in force or are nullity in law. It is clear from the records that the 32G proceedings resulting in an order dated 6th May 1963 were between the recorded tenant and the land lord. These proceedings were found to be a nullity. The nullity is right from the initiation inasmuch as a finding of fact is recorded that the property/agricultural land is Devasthan Inam and name of Laxmi Narayan is shown as holder of the same. Name of Anandi is shown as vahivatdar. If Anandi is not owner of the property and, when the authorities in the proceedings under section 32G accepted the fact that property was Devasthan Inam land, yet, they concluded an inquiry under section 32G and fixed the purchase price in respect of subject lands, then, their order was clear nullity. That was a declaration which was obtained against recorded tenant. There was no necessity, therefore, for the petitioners to have been heard inspite of matter which stood concluded by an order of 6th May 1963. It is, therefore, only those parties who were before the authorities when the order dated 6th May 1963 was passed were required to be heard and that is the course adopted by the Sub Divisional Officer while passing the order dated 24th June 1999. Once the proceedings in favour of the recorded tenant were vitiated by nullity and were void ab initio, then, the permissions granted could not have been sustained. The 6 wp6439group.doc permissions were granted on the basis that the recorded tenant is a deemed purchaser and, therefore, deals with a property as a owner thereof. He seeks to alienate and transfer the lands in favour of the present petitioners and the sanction was sought for this transaction/transfer. That sanction was based on 32G proceedings and the order therein. Once that order is set aside, then, the permissions can no longer remain in force. In these circumstances, I do not see how in the light of the orders passed concurrently that the petitioners have a locus to maintain any writ petition. They cannot even challenge the order of the Sub Divisional Officer. The Revenue Tribunal has heard them, but, finding that the factual position on record is undisputed and the order under section 32G was nullity, it rightly refused to assist the petitioner and proceeded to quash and set aside the permission under section 43. Therefore, even if the petitioners have filed a suit and declaration is claimed by them with regard to Sub Divisional Officer’s order, I do not see that how in the light of the factual finding which is undisputed, that the permissions can now be sustained. Therefore, the order of the Sub Divisional Officer so also the Tribunal cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioner. The petitions are, therefore, dismissed. 9 However, it is clarified that each of the orders, namely, that of Sub Divisional Officer dated 24th June 1999 and that of the Maharashtra 7 wp6439group.doc Revenue Tribunal in two revision applications, namely, Tenancy Revision No.228/B/2001 and Tenancy Revision No.229/B/2001, shall be construed as setting aside the permissions dated 30th June 1997 and 13th August 1997, only qua the lands which are involved and which were subject matter of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Officer. The lands are, therefore, Survey No.17/3 and Survey No.17/4. The other lands which are covered by the sanction and the permission will not be affected by the order of Sub Divisional Officer dated 20th June 1999 and that of the Tribunal dated 20th October 2009. Equally, dismissal of these petitions will not affect the rights of the petitioners in respect of the other lands. It is also clarified that the regular civil suit can proceed in accordance with law and, save and except, declaration with regard to Sub Divisional Officer’s order dated 24th June 1999 claimed therein, it will be open for the petitioners to seek such reliefs as against the recorded tenant, Hasan Shaikh (Teli) or his heirs as legal representatives, as are permissible in law including damages and monetary compensation. All contentions in that behalf are kept open and shall not be concluded by these orders. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)