1 wp8575.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8575 OF 2010 Bhagwat s/o Shankar Shukla Age: 58 years, Occ: Agril., R/o. Sangvi, Tq. Pachora, District Jalgaon. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Anusayabai w/o Shankar Deshmukh (deceased) & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.3. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH JULY, 2011 PER COURT : This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 15/B/2002/JGN dated 23rd August 2010. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the earlier application of the petitioner was rejected by the 2 wp8575.10 Tahasildar on the ground that some of the L.Rs. of the respondent were not brought on record and the petitioner was not present on the date on which Tahasildar had fixed the matter for hearing, fresh application was filed and the same was rejected. Fresh application was filed by the petitioner who is son of the original tenant. In the earlier litigation, father of the petitioner was party. However, in subsequent proceedings, petitioner who is son of the original tenant is party. Learned Counsel further submits that it is the duty of the Tahasildar under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short, “said Act”) to determine the price of the land and it is not for the tenant to file application. However, as a precaution the application was filed by the original tenant. It is further submitted that it is undisputed position that the petitioner is in possession of the property since long and substantial right of the parties cannot be taken away merely on the technicalities that fresh application which was 3 wp8575.10 filed by the petitioner herein was not maintainable in view of the rejection of the earlier application of the petitioner, for non prosecution and also for the reasons that no L.Rs. of the deceased respondent are brought on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and submitted that this petition deserves consideration. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent No.3 invited my attention to the provisions of Section 32-G of the said Act and submitted that it is admitted position that when the original tenant was called upon to remain present before the Tahasildar, he did not remain present inspite of notice by the Tahasildar, and therefore if at all the petitioner’s father or the petitioner was aggrieved by the said order of the Tahasildar, they should have filed application under proviso of sub-section 3 of Section 32-G of the said Act for reviewing the earlier order 4 wp8575.10 passed by the Tahasildar. According to Counsel for respondent No.3, if any order is passed by the Tahasildar in default of the appearance of the party, the party has right to apply to same authority for review of the earlier order within 60 days from the date of passing of such order. However, in the present case, no such application was filed by the petitioner or his father and therefore, application so filed, was not maintainable. Therefore, according to him, no interference is warranted in the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. 4. I have given due consideration to the submissions of the Counsel for the petitioner and Counsel for the respondent No.3. Counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any provision of law of the said Act under which fresh application was filed before the Tahasildar and said is maintainable. 5 wp8575.10 . It is admitted position that the petitioner herein did not prefer any application for review of the order of the Tahasildar which was passed by Tahasildar for non appearance of the original tenant before him as contemplated under Section 32-G of the said Act. Sub Section (3) of Section 32-G of the said Act reads thus : “(3) Where any tenant fails to appear or makes a statement that he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase is ineffective : Provided that if such order is passed in default of the appearance of any party, the Tribunal shall communicate such order to the parties and any party on whose default the order was passed may within 60 days from the date on which the order was communicated to him apply for the review of the same." 6 wp8575.10 5. From perusal of the proviso in sub section 3 of Section 32-G of the said Act, it is abundantly clear that, if the order is passed by the authority for default of the appearance of the party, such order is to be communicated by the authority to the parties and any party on whose default the order was passed may within 60 days from the date on which order was communicated to him apply for the review of the same. Admittedly in this case no such application was filed for review of the order of the Tahasildar. 6. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Para-8 of the judgment has considered the provision of Section 32-G of the said Act and observed that first ground to reject the application of the petitioner was that legal heirs of some of the respondents were not brought on record and consequently, there was abatement of the case to that extent. The other ground was the absence of tenant on which date the matter was fixed for appearance. The Maharashtra Revenue 7 wp8575.10 Tribunal also considered other provisions and reached to the conclusion that fresh application for the same relief was not maintainable. 7. On independent scrutiny, I find that in view of inbuilt mechanism as provided in sub section (3) of Section 32-G of the said Act, if the order is passed by the Authority in default of the appearance of the party, the Authority shall communicate such order to the parties and any party on whose default the order was passed may within 60 days from the date on which the order was communicated to him apply for the review of the same. As stated earlier, no such application was preferred and fresh application was filed which was not maintainable. 8. The view taken by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and authorities below is a possible view. Therefore, no interference is called for. Hence Writ Petition is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. However, dismissal of this petition will 8 wp8575.10 not come in the way of the petitioner to approach the Tahasildar under Section 32(G)(3) proviso, seeking review of the order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the application in default for non appearance. In case such application is filed, the Authority will decide the same in accordance with law and while dealing with prayer for condonation of delay, will keep in mind the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/JUL11