1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.1737 OF 1991. Nivratti S/o Namdeo alias Laman Rathod, Age 60 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Omerga Tq. Dist. Osmanabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Collector, Osmanabad. 4. The Tahsildar, Omerga. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.V.Mandlik, Sr. advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 07.01.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this petition is to order dated 3.5.1991, rendered by learned Additional 2 Commissioner, Aurangabad in a Revision application bearing No.91.Rev.R.31. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner dismissed the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner on ground of delay and because there was no substantial reason found to interfere with the order rendered by the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. 2. It is not necessary to elaborately set out the rival contentions. Suffice it to say that agricultural lands S.Nos.175, 176 and 177 situated at Omerga were said to be Inam lands, held by Yeshwant Bharti Buwa as Inamdar. Said Inamdar died. The succession proceedings are not yet completed. The petitioner claimed tenancy rights in respect of the said lands. His case was that one Dharu Laman, along with his sons Pandu and he himself were members of the joint Hindu family. He asserted that they were cultivating the above three lands together since prior to 1954. He alleged that because Dharu Laman was the Karta of the joint Hindu family, only his name came to be recorded in the revenue 3 record. Subsequently, Dharu and Pandu had both died. So, his name was recorded in the cultivation column. He continued to cultivate the said lands as a protected tenant. The petitioner further alleged that certain inquiry was held behind his back by the Tahsildar, Omerga and thereupon, the Director Jamabandi approved the proposal to attach one of the said land. He, therefore, preferred appeal against such order rendered in village form No.3. The Additional Collector, dismissed his appeal on 30.11.1990. He, therefore, preferred Revision Application which has been dismissed vide the impugned order. 3. Heard learned counsel and learned A.G.P. 4. It is pertinent to notice that the learned Additional Collector dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for the reason that the lands are inam lands. The learned Additional Collector found that the petitioner and his advocate were not present on the date of hearing and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The 4 Revisional authority seems to have dismissed the Revision application on the ground that conduct of the petitioner was not fair. It has been observed : "That Court "Addl.Collector" after giving ample opportunity to the appellant (for four years nearly) decided the matter on merits. This conduct of the appellant shows clear intention to delay the legally correct proceedings. This behaviour of the appellant establishes that he does not come here with clean hands." What transpires from the record is that the Collector did not decide whether the lands are granted for services to the charitable Institution i.e. Yeshwant Bharti Buwa or that the lands are granted to the Inamdar as such. The nature of inam is not clear from the record available before this Court. It is necessary to determine whether the tenancy could be created in respect of the said lands or that considering the 5 nature of Inam, the lands were exmepted from applicability of the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It appears that without determining the nature of Inam and without considering legality of the tenancy issue, the appeal preferred by the petitioner as well as the Revision application filed by him came to be dismissed. The revenue record prima facie shows that the petitioner is in actual possession since long The authorities termed him as "third person" (stranger). The question is whether he is absolutely unconcerned with the tenancy rights and could be regarded as unauthorised occupant of the lands in question. For such purpose, appropriate inquiry ought to have been conducted by the Additional Collector. 5. It may be noticed that already much time has elapsed. The petitioner seems to have failed to actively participate in the proceedings before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector, however, did not specifically given finding as regards the nature of the Inam and status of the petitioner as unauthorised 6 occupant. Hence, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the Additional Collector, Osmanabad for afresh decision of the appeal on merits. 6. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders of the learned Additional Commissioner and learned Additional Collector, referred to above are quashed. The matter is remitted to the Additional Collector, Osmanabad. The appeal No.62/BTS-59/1986-87 stands restored. The Additional Collector, shall make inquiry as regards nature of Inam and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. The petitioner is directed to appear before the Additional Collector, Osmanabad on 8.3.2010 and to adduce his evidence, as may be found necessary, within a period of three (3) weeks thereafter. The Additional Collector shall give reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and if the latter will fail to avail the opportunity then a specific mention may be made in the Roznama of the appeal. The three defaults made by the petitioner in appearing before the Additional Collector, will entail dismissal of his appeal and he will not be heard again of not 7 being given opportunity of hearing. 7. The Additional Collector, Osmanabad, shall continue the statusquo position till decision of the appeal. 8. Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp173791