1998 Supreme(Bom) 668

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
R.M. Lodha, J.
Shri Kishor Govardhandas Tanna ..... Petitioner.
Versus
Shri Malhari Nimbaji Patil others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 4313 4314 of 1984, decided on 11-9-1998.
Advocates appeared :
P.S. Dani with A.K. Abhyankar, for petitioners.
G.R. Rege, for respondent Nos. 7 to 10.

Headnote:Sections 74, 76-A and 84-C(4) -Revisional power-Exercise of suo motu-Order passed under Section 84-C(4) is appealable under Section 74 of Act-No appeal preferred-Collector can suo motu invoke its revisional power under Section 76-A within reasonable time.-There is no dispute that the proceedings were initiated under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy Act for disposal of the disputed land and the proclamation was issued in that regard by the concerned Tahsildar. Pursuant to the said proclamation, the grant of the disputed land was made in favour of the present petitioner under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C. Obviously, such an order which is in the nature of the grant in favour of the petitioners under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C is appealable under Section 74 because the orders passed under Section 84-C are appealable. Section 74(i)(u) does not carve out any category of orders passed under Section as not appealable. Irrespective of any nature of the order that may be passed under Section 84-C, such order is appealable to the concerned Collector under Section 74. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the order which is passed under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C is not appealable since it is not an order but a grant. Therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 74-C was appealable under Section 84(i)(u). Since, no appeal was preferred within time challenging the said grants made in favour of the petitioners under Section 84-C(4), the Collector could suo motu invoke its revisional power under Section 76-A and such power having been exercised by the Collector in revisonable time, cannot be said to have been invoked without jurisdiction.

       Section 84-C(4) read with Section 63-A-Rules 1956, Rules 21, 51Grant of land-Notice-Cannot be issued without determining price of land-Fundamental error by not determining it before issuance of notice-It vitiated the entire proceedings under Section 84-C.-Sub-section (4) of Section 84-C starts with the expression after determining the reasonable price the mamlatdar shall grant the land. That means the process of grant of land under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C can only start after the reasonable price has been determined by mamlatdar in accordance with Section 63-A. Thus, determining of reasonable price under Section 63-A is condition precedent for initiation of process of grant of the land by the mamlatdar under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C. The process of grant of the land is initiated by issuance of publication of notice. Obviously, therefore, in the said notice the price of the grant as determined by the Mamlatdar under Section 63-A is required to be mentioned and while issuing notice, the mamlatdar is required to state the price determined Form 11 of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1956 which has been made applicable by virtue of Rule 51 does provide the column of the price fixed for the grant: Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Tahsildar to mention the price determined by him under Section 63-A in the notice issued by him inviting applications for grant of the land under sub-section (4) of Section 84-C. Admittedly, in the notice published by Tahsildar, the price of the land determined under Section 63-A was not mentioned. It is admitted case of the petitioners that price under Section 63-A was determined by the Tahsildar after the public notice was issued on 21.11.1981. Obviously, therefore, in the public notice in the form under Rule 21 published on 21.11.1981, the price of the land could not have been mentioned. Thus, the Tahsildar committed fundamental error by not determining the price of the land under Section 63-A before issuance of the public notice on 21.11.1981. The error was so fundamental that it vitiated the entire proceedings of grant of land under Section 84-C to the petitioners. The public notice was not in accordance with law. The Collector as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, therefore, were justified in holding that by not stating the price by the Tahsildar under Section 63-A, in the notice published in Form 11 under Rule 21 which was applicable by virtue of Rule 51, a gross error was committed by the Tahsildar which vitiated the entire proceedings of grant of land in favour of the petitioners.

       Rule 21-Notice-Not required to give 30 days time for inviting applications.-In the notice published on 21.11.1981, the period prescribed for making an application was on or before 31.11.1981. In the absence of any provision that the said notice must give 30 days time for inviting applications, the Collector and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were not justified in holding that the applications made after 31.11.1981 were not time barred. To that extent the order of the Collector and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot be justified but that does not alter the ultimate order passed by them.