The jurisdiction to hear the revision application under the Code vests in the Minister of State, and the Revisional Authority should not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order.

Headnote:
Competent Authority - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code - Section 257 - The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of the Cabinet Minister and Minister of State to hear and decide the revision application under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. It also addresses the principles of natural justice and the scope of powers of the Appellate Authority under the Code. The court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 13th April, 2001 and the communication dated 19th April, 2001 by the Desk Officer. It also quashed and set aside the order dated 24th April, 2001 as far as it relates to the sale or alienation of the property in question, but not as far as it relates to the use of land including construction in the property. The order dated 13th March, 2001 was not interfered with at that stage as the matter was before the Revisional Authority. The revision application was to be decided by the Minister of State, and the parties were to appear before the concerned Minister of State on 9th August, 2001 to take an appropriate date for the hearing.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner claimed to be the owner and possessor of a property and obtained an order for conversion of land to non-agriculture use. The respondents filed an application for cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner for conversion of the land. The petitioner filed a revision application under section 257 of the Code, which was heard by the Minister of State. The Cabinet Minister vacated the order of status quo and directed the concerned authorities to take precaution against the alienation or sale of the property. The matter was taken up by the Deputy Commissioner for hearing and was adjourned at the request of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Cabinet Minister to hear the revision application and the disposal of the revision application without hearing the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:

The impugned order dated 13th April, 2001 was quashed and set aside. The communication dated 19th April, 2001 by the Desk Officer was also set aside. The order dated 24th April, 2001 was quashed and set aside as far as it relates to the sale or alienation of the property in question, but not as far as it relates to the use of land including construction in the property. The order dated 13th March, 2001 was not interfered with at that stage as the matter was before the Revisional Authority. The revision application was to be decided by the Minister of State, and the parties were to appear before the concerned Minister of State on 9th August, 2001 to take an appropriate date for the hearing.
Issues: The jurisdiction of the Cabinet Minister to hear the revision application, the application of the principles of natural justice, and the scope of powers of the Appellate Authority under the Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction to hear the revision application under the Code vests in the Minister of State, and there being no specific order passed by the Cabinet Minister reserving the revision application for being heard and decided by him, the impugned order apparently discloses an arbitrary exercise of powers. The Revisional Authority should not vary or reverse any order affecting any question of right between private persons without having the parties interested notice to appear and to be heard in support of such order. The order of the Cabinet Minister was beyond the scope of the inquiry under section 257 of the Code and the Appellate Authority should consider the application on merits and based on other materials on record.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 13th April, 2001 and the communication dated 19th April, 2001 were quashed and set aside. The order dated 24th April, 2001 was quashed and set aside as far as it relates to the sale or alienation of the property in question, but not as far as it relates to the use of land including construction in the property. The order dated 13th March, 2001 was not interfered with at that stage as the matter was before the Revisional Authority. The revision application was to be decided by the Minister of State, and the parties were to appear before the concerned Minister of State on 9th August, 2001 to take an appropriate date for the hearing.

JUDGMENT- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

2. The following questions arise for determination in this petition :

(1) Who is the Competent Authority under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter called as “the Code”) to hear and decide the revision application when the same is filed before the State Government?

(2) Whether the application of the principles of natural justice, particularly, in relation to hearing of the parties by the Revisional Authority is excluded while disposing the revision application under section 257 of the Code?

(3) What is the scope of powers of the Appellate Authority under the Code while considering the application for relief in appeal arising from an order permitting non-agricultural use of land? Whether it includes power to impose restrictions against alienation of the land which is the subject matter of the grant of permission for non-agriculture use?

3. The petition arises from the order dated 13th April, 2001 of the respondent No. 1 and communicated by a letter dated 19th April, 2001 as well as from the orders dated 24th April, 2001 and 13th March, 2001 passed by the respondent No. 17. The order dated 13th April, 2001 of the respondent No. 1 relates to the vacating of the order dated 23rd March, 2001 which was passed by the Minister of State (Revenue). The said order dated 13-4-2001 also relates to direction to the concerned officers to ensure that no alienation of sale of the property in question takes place during the pendency of the appeal before the respondent No. 17. The letter dated 13th April, 2001 relates to the communication of the said order. The order dated 24th April, 2001 relates to the adjournment of hearing of appeal before the respondent No. 17 and grant of status quo in the matter. The order dated 13th March, 2001 relates to condonation of delay in filing of appeal by the respondent Nos. 2 to 15.

4. The facts in brief, relevant for the decision, are that some times in the year, 1996 the petitioner claiming to be owner and possessor of part of the property bearing Survey No. 555, situated at Jalna obtained order for conversion of land to non-agriculture use. In fact, the order to that effect was passed by the Collector, Jalna on 1-7-1996. The said order of conversion of land for non-agriculture use was sought to be challenged by predecessors of the respondents No. 3 to 5 by filing an application before the Collector, Jalna but the same was dismissed by the Collector on 10th April, 2000. Thereafter, on 11th April, 2000, the respondent Nos. 2 to 15 filed an application for cancellation of the permission granted to the petitioner for conversion of the land for non-agriculture purposes to the extent of the part of the land claiming the same to be belonging to the said respondents. The Collector allowed the said application by order dated 14th September, 2000. The same was sought to be challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 4975/2000, which was allowed by this Court and the order dated 14th September, 2000 was quashed and set aside while permitting the respondents No. 2 to 15 to withdraw the proceedings before the Collector, making it clear that the withdrawal would not affect the legal rights of the respondent No. 2 herein in the proceedings pending in the Civil Court in Civil Suit No. 168/98 as well as before the Revenue Authorities and the withdrawal was permitted without prejudice to the rights and contention of the respective parties. The respondents No. 2 to 15 thereafter, on 17th January 2001 filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner-respondent No. 17 herein challenging the permission granted for the non-agriculture use of the land by the petitioner, along with the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay was objected to by the petitioner. However, the respondent No.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(Bom) 664

Login now and unlock premium legal research