WP.8575-09 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 8575 OF 2009 Yashwant Raghunath Haldankar ...Petitioner Vs. Mr. Janu Babu Thukrul & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. Suresh More, for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Gharat, for the Respondent No.3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and respondent No.3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 21st August, 2009. By the said order, the learned Tribunal was pleased to allow the revision application which was preferred by respondent No.1 herein and the order passed by the Collector dated 31st March, 2001 remanding the matter back for fresh inquiry was set aside. 2. Brief facts are that respondent No.1 was declared as a tenant by an order dated 4th September, 1964 in 32-G proceedings which were WP.8575-09 - 2 - initiated and purchase price was fixed in favour of the said tenant/ respondent No.1 herein. Certificate under Section 32-M was also issued. After 29 years, the petitioner herein challenged the said order by filing the Tenancy Revision No. 17 of 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri. In the revision application it was contended that the disputed land Survey No. 25/8 is in his possession as a tenant, even before the Tiller’s day. It was contended that respondent No.1 was a tenant of another piece of land, namely Survey No. 25/9 and by mistake he was treated as tenant of land Survey No. 25/8. The original landlord of both the lands was petitioner herein. The revision application was allowed and the SDO was pleased to set aside the order dated 4-9-1964 and remanded the matter back for fresh inquiry. This order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by a reasoned order set aside the order passed by the SDO. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in the year 1990, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short “ALT”) issued notice to respondent No.1 after it realised that a mistake has been committed in declaring respondent No.1 as tenant in respect of land Survey No. 25/8. It is submitted that in the said proceedings, respondent No.1 has given his statement, admitting that he was not cultivating the WP.8575-09 - 3 - land Survey No. 25/8. It is submitted that revision application was filed by the petitioner before the SDO. However, the proceedings before the ALT could not be traced. It is therefore, submitted that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order passed by the ALT. It is submitted that order passed in the year 1964 was non-est and, therefore, period of limitation would not apply. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of – Abdullamiyan Abdulrehman, Appellant vs. Government of Bombay, Respondent [A.I.R. (29) 1942 Bombay 257]. 3. In my view, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal considered the revisional powers of the SDO and has observed that the said powers could not be exercised after the expiry of one year. The learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court, in the case of – Patel Chunnibhai vs. Naran Rao [1966 Mh.L.J.,475]. In the said judgment, the Apex Court has considered the scope of Section 76A and powers of the Collector, and has observed that the Collector can exercise the revisional powers, however, it cannot be done after expiry of one WP.8575-09 - 4 - year from the lower court’s order. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 4. The Apex Court in the case of - Surya Dev Rai, Appellant vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors, Respondents [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675] has laid down the guidelines as to the circumstances under which High Courts should exercise the writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, as under- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court. ... 38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) ... ... (5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. WP.8575-09 - 5 - (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 5. In my view, therefore, since there is no error of law, apparent on the face of record, committed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order. So WP.8575-09 - 6 - far as the judgment on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, said judgment is passed in a case where the authority did not have any jurisdiction and even then it proceeded to pass the said order. In the said case it was held that the said order was nullity. In the present case, the order which was passed by the ALT in 1964, the ALT had the authority and jurisdiction to make an inquiry and pass the said order. The ratio of this judgment, therefore, would not apply to the present case. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]