1 ndm 67 wp.447.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 447 OF 2010 Dipak Ganpat Dalvi and others Vs. Manaka Sonu Goriwale Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. Nitin Mulye for the Petitioners. Mr. Pankaj J. Das for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 7th December, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 By order dated 25th March, 2010, notice was issued and record and proceedings was called for. Considering the controversy involved, the petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. By order dated 4th July, 1966, the Additional Mamlatdar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Chiplun directed that the name of the Respondent be deleted as the Respondent – tenant was not in possession of the suit land and that since 1954-55, the Petitioner- landlord was in possession. 3 An application was made on 28th January, 1998 by the Respondent to the Tahsildar for fixing the price of the suit land under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). The said application was rejected. The respondent preferred an appeal for challenging the order 2 dated 4th July, 1966. The Sub-Divisional Officer by order dated 2nd December, 1999 allowed the appeal and by setting aside the order dated 4th July, 1966 remanded the matter to the Agriculture Lands Tribunal. After remand, by order dated 5th December, 2002, the Agriculture Lands Tribunal held that the respondent was tenant in possession on 1st April, 1957 and hence he was entitled to purchase the suit land under Section 32-G of the said Act. Appeal preferred by the Petitioners against the said order was dismissed by the Sub- Divisional Officer. Revision application preferred by the Petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has been also dismissed. 4 The contention raised by the Petitioners is that after order of remand was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the date fixed for hearing in the proceedings before the Additional Tahsildar was not communicated to them and they were not served with the notice of the date fixed. The same submission appears to have been canvassed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned President of the Tribunal has observed that the notices were served by registered post A.D. In view of this controversy, record and the proceeding of the case before the Additional Tahsildar was called for. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners pointed out that notice has been allegedly issued of hearing fixed on 5th December, 2002 in the name of the 2nd petitioner and the so-called acknowledgment does not bear postal stamp. The submission is that notice was not served to any of the Petitioners. 3 5 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent point out that the Petitioners are aware of the pendency of the proceedings before the Agriculture Lands Tribunal and that notices were served of the proceedings to the Petitioners on twenty different occasions. He submitted that the only grievance made by the Petitioners before the Revisional Authority was that the notice was not served to the Petitioners, but was served to the constituted attorney of the Petitioners. Therefore, now the Petitioners cannot make a grievance regarding failure to serve notice. 6 I have considered the submissions. After the order of remand was passed, the learned Additional Tahsildar fixed the inquiry on various dates and notice of every date was served to the parties. On many occasions, the Respondent was present before the Agriculture Lands Tribunal, who has accepted intimation of the date fixed by affixing his thumb impression. It appears that on 29th October, 2002, the matter was fixed before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and was adjourned to 5th December, 2002. Notice dated 29th October, 2002 was issued by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal informing the parties that the next date of hearing was 5th December, 2002. The acknowledgment on record shows that the notice was sent only to 2nd petitioner. Moreover, there is no postal receipt of dispatch of notice by registered post A.D. and what is on record is only the postal acknowledgment allegedly singed by the 2nd petitioner. Surprisingly, the acknowledgment does not bear any postal seal or stamp. 4 7 On the basis of the said acknowledgment, it is impossible to come to a conclusion that notice of the date fixed was served on the Petitioners. Record shows that the notice of the said date was not issued to the constituted attorney of the Petitioners. Thus, the record shows that inquiry was conducted on 5th February, 2002 in absence of the Petitioners and there is nothing on record of the Agriculture Lands Tribunal to show that the notice of the date fixed was served to the Petitioners. In view of the breach of the principle of natural justice, by setting aside the impugned orders, the matter will have to be remanded for fresh inquiry before the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal. 8 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside and the ALT case No.338/66/ALT/S.R. 1275 is restored to the file of the Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Chiplun for fresh inquiry ; ii. The parties are directed to appear before the Additional Tahsildar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Chiplun on Monday 17th January, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. On that day, the date of hearing shall be fixed ; iii. It is made clear that no further notice will be served to the parties ; 5 iv. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal shall give opportunity to both the parties to lead further evidence. After considering the evidence, a fresh order shall be passed in accordance with law ; v. Record and proceedings shall forthwith sent back to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal ; vi. Petition is partly allowed with no order as to costs. [ A.S.OKA, J ]