WRIT PETITION 53 of 2008 on 6 October 1993

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 53 OF 2008

Sambhaji s/o Dhanaji Jagtap& others

.. APPLICANTS

VERSUSThe State of Maharashtra& others.. RESPONDENTSMr. P.D. Bachate, advocate for the applicants.Mr. S.P. Shah, advocate for the respondent. =====

CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J.DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010.

PER COURT :

1 Heard.

2Order passed by this court on 5-12-2001 in Writ Petition no. 4485/2000 is subjected to challenge in this review application, presented after 8 years after passing of the impugned order.

authority. By virtue of section 88 B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, lands belonging to local authority are exempted from operation of certain provisions of Tenancy Act. Considering this aspect, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal interfered in its original jurisdiction by setting aside order passed on 18-3-1986 and the order passed by the Tahsildar on 6th October, 1993. On consideration of record of the petition it transpires that certificate under section 32 M of the Bombay Tenancy Act came to be issued in favour of the tenant Bahirji Jagtap. In the certificate itself, the Municipal council, Dhule is mentioned as owner. Reliance is placed on the certificate for the purpose of claiming ownership over the property by the tenant.

4 I have perused the judgment of the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It does not transpire on perusal of the judgments that ownership of the Municipal Council over the land has been controverted. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has mentioned in the order that 7/12 extracts pertaining to gat no. 122 placed on page no. 3 of the trial court’s record shows that Dhanaji Jagtap has been cultivating suit land from 1956-1957 and the Municipal Council is shown as Kabjedar. Thus, possession of Municipal Council over the property also does appear to have been borne out from record. Relying on the record produced before the courts below, and on consideration of findings of fact, this court has observed in the judgment, that, it is an undisputed position that the property belongs to the Municipal Council. This contention appearing in the judgment in respect of ownership of the Municipal Council which is also based on admission of litigating parties is being controverted by the review petitioner for the first time. Reliance is placed on certain record which is stated to have been received on presentation of application under the Right to Information Act, and after disposal of writ petition. It cannot be controverted that the parties proceeded before the tenancy authority on the assumption that the property belongs to Municipal Council. The record produced before tenancy authorities and findings recorded by deciding authority on the basis of record available also lead to conclusion that property belongs to Municipal Council. There does not appear to be any error in the finding recorded by this court which was based on admission given by review petitioner that the property belongs to the Municipal Council. It is also to be noted that the order passed by this court in the year 2001 is being controverted by presenting review application after passage of 8 years of passing of the order. It would be beyond the scope of exercise of jurisdiction in review application to proceed to probe into the findings of fact recorded by tenancy authorities. Review application is devoid of substance hence stands rejected.

( R. M. BORDE, J.)

dyb/office/revappln53.08.odt

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.__________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGBAD.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13139 OF 2009

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of | Coram, appearances, Court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar/s orders | and Registrar’s orders |

CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010.

.This is an application seeking amendment in the review application. Considering the contentions raised in the application, application is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to amend the application.

( R. M. BORDE, J.)

dyb / office /revappln53.08.odt