Writ Petition No. 1745 of 1999

29th June, 2001

Petitioner Counsel: Shri. B. N. PATIL
Respondent Counsel: Shri. B. L. SAGAR KILLARIKAR,Shri. C. K. SHINDE

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT :- Rule is made returnable forthwith. The petition is taken up for hearing with the consent of the learned Advocates for both the parties.

2. The order dated 13.8.1998 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No. 47/A/93/Latur is challenged in this writ petition. The Tribunal while deciding the above said matter which was filed by way of an appeal under Section 11 of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952, observed that the appeal before the Tribunal was not maintainable. Hence, the appeal came to be dismissed.

3. The above-said appeal arose out of the order dated 29.6.1993 passed by the Collector, Latur, in File No. 1992/ROR/A-15 whereby the learned Collector maintained and confirmed the order dated 31.10.1992 whereby the learned Atiyat Deputy Collector observed that the land Survey No. 41 with an area of 4 Hectares 56 are situated at village Kawthala was an Inam land given to the predecessor-in-tile of the present petitioners for service of Maruti temple. Though subsequently the temple is registered as public trust, however, there is nothing on the record to show that the property belongs to the said trust. It was a service inam land and therefore, would not form part and parcel of the public trust property.

4. An application was moved before the Atiyat Deputy Collector by the villagers of village Kawthala bringing it to the notice of the Deputy Collector that the original Inamdar Shri. Manik Balaji Bargale was not performing worship of deity regularly and was not looking after the Maruti temple for which in fact he was given the land Survey NO.41 by way of inam. The villagers, therefore, complained that since the said Manik failed to perform his duty the land may be taken over by the Government and it be auctioned on early basis to the cultivators.

5. This application was opposed by Manik. However, after making appropriate and due inquiry the learned Atiyat Deputy Collector, Udgir, by his order dated 31.8.1992 withdrew the land from the possession of Inamdar Manik and further ordered that it should be auctioned for cultivation on yearly basis.

6. The above-said order happened to be the subject matter of appeal before the Collector, Latur. The Collector, Latur, specifically observed that since it was the contention of the petitioner that no proper inquiry was made and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put up his case, the matter was earlier remanded and fresh inquiry was ordered to be made. The Tahsildar conducted the fresh inquiry after giving due notice to the parties concerned, visited the spot, recorded the statements of persons of both the sides and even spot panchanama was conducted. Thereafter the Tahsildar reached to the conclusion that the petitioners failed in performing all those duties for which the land was given in inam i.e. maintenance of the temple and Pooja-Archa (worship) and other things of deity Hanuman. The Collector having realized that there was no error whatsoever committed by the learned Atiyat Deputy Collector and after having seen that the petitioner had definitely failed in performing his duties for which inam land was given to him observed that there was nothing wrong in withdrawing the land from the Inamdar and auctioning the same on yearly basis. The appeal came to be dismissed which was challenged by the present petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Member of the Tribunal, however, dismissed the appeal only on the ground that the appeal was not maintainable against the order of the learned Atiyat Deputy Collector.

7. Shri. B. N. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, vehemently contended that on 6.9.1994 a notification was issued by the Government under Section 315(3) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code whereby the Tribunal was empowered to entertain and decide appeals and revisions against the orders passed by the Atiyat Collector and Atiyat Deputy Collector. However, it is pertinent to note that though the aforesaid Notification was published in the Gazette, from the observations of the Tribunal it is clear that there was no amendment made in the Code and particularly to Schedule J thereof.

8. Shri. B. N. Patil, learned Advocate for the petitioner, invited my attention to yet another notification dated 27.4.1994 issued by the Revenue and Forests Department, Government of Maharashtra, which is issued again in exercise of powers under Section 315(3) of the Code whereby the Tribunal is already conferred with the jurisdiction to entertain and decide appeals against the original judgments and orders passed by the Atiyat Deputy Collector. The Tribunal is also empowered to entertain revisions against the judgments and orders in appeal passed by the learned Atiyat Collector. However, it is pertinent to note that this Notification dated 27.11.1998 and the order passed by the Tribunal is much prior to the above-said notification.

9. In view of this position, merely because no amendment was carried out in the Code and particularly in Schedule J, it would not by itself divest the Tribunal of its jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals or revisions. Section 315 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code deals with the subject of jurisdiction of the Tribunal and sub-section (3) thereof specifically empowers the State Government to issue appropriate notification conferring jurisdiction on the Tribunal to entertain and decide appeals and revisions against the orders of the authorities below such as Atiyat Deputy Collector and the Atiyat Collector. This can be done by the State Government by issuance of the appropriate notification in the Official Gazette. It is no doubt true that the Government is also empowered by sub-section (4) of Section 315 of the Code to cancel such notification or omit any entry in Schedule J and resume such jurisdiction to itself. The fact remains that when the Government is empowered to amend Schedule J by the notification published in the Official Gazette there hardly remains any doubt that when such a notification is issued and published in the official Gazette, the Tribunal could be said to have been legally conferred with the powers and jurisdiction to entertain and decide the appeals and revisions under the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act.

10. Shri. C. K. Shinde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, today has brought to the notice of this Court that in the latest edition of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code it is seen that necessary amendment to Schedule J of the Code is carried out.

11. In the present case, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal solely on the ground that though the notification was there no appropriate amendment was made in the Code and therefore, according to the Tribunal, it was yet to be conferred with the powers to entertain and decide the appeals and revisions. In the opinion of this Court, the approach of the Tribunal is not correct and the order passed by the Tribunal on that presumption has to be quashed and set-aside. In view of the observations above, the present matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with the law after entertaining the appeal for its hearing on merits.

12. The writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the above-said terms. No order as to costs.

Petition allowed.