Back
1974 Supreme(Bom) 88
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(C. S. Dharmadhikari J.)
SUKA HARI - Petitioner.
V.
LILABAI ONKAR - Respondent.
Advocates Appeared
For tenant - P. N. Chandurkar.
For landlord - R. N. Deshpande.
A party cannot indirectly achieve or gain relief that it is not entitled to directly. Acquiescence and acceptance of an order make it final, and subsequent attempts to modify or challenge it may be barred.
Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 36, 101, 102, 106(2), 107, 110, 111, 114 - RESUMPTION OF LAND - JURISDICTION OF AUTHORITIES - INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS - SCOPE OF REVISION - ACQUIESCENCE AND ACCEPTANCE OF ORDER - FINALITY OF ORDER - EXERCISE OF EXTRAORDINARY POWER UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.
Fact of the Case:
The original landlord filed an application for possession of land under section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The Naib-Tahsildar ordered the resumption of half the area of the land, but the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal modified the order to allow the resumption of the whole land. The tenant challenged the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, while the landlord sought to resume the entire land.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the landholder was entitled to resume only half the area of the land, as per the original order of the Naib-Tahsildar. The Court found that the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in modifying the order in favor of the landholder, as he had not challenged the original order and had acquiesced in it. The Court also held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Naib-Tahsildar, as the landholder had not filed an appeal or revision application against it.
Issues: 1. Whether the landholder was entitled to resume the entire land or only half the area, as per the original order of the Naib-Tahsildar? 2. Whether the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had the jurisdiction to modify the order in favor of the landholder, who had acquiesced in the original order? 3. Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Naib-Tahsildar, in the absence of an appeal or revision application from the landholder?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted section 36 of the Tenancy Act and held that the landholder was entitled to resume only half the area of the land, as per the original order of the Naib-Tahsildar. The Court reasoned that the landholder had not challenged the original order and had acquiesced in it, making it final. 2. The Court held that the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in modifying the order in favor of the landholder, as he had not challenged the original order and had acquiesced in it. The Court found that the authorities lacked the jurisdiction to modify the order in such circumstances. 3. The Court held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Naib-Tahsildar, as the landholder had not filed an appeal or revision application against it. The Court found that the Tribunal's jurisdiction was limited to reviewing orders of the Collector, and it could not suo motu interfere with orders of lower authorities.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the tenant's petition and set aside the orders of the Special Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Court restored the original order of the Naib-Tahsildar, which allowed the landholder to resume only half the area of the land. The Court dismissed the landlord's petition.
2. Being aggrieved by this order tenant Suka filed an appeal under section 107 of the Tenancy Act. The landholder, namely, Gangaprasad, did not file any appeal against the order passed by the Naib-Tahsildar. In para 1 of the said order while reciting the facts of the case it was observed by the Special Deputy Collector that the Naib-Tahsildar held that the landlord was entitled to the possession of the land to the extent of whole of the survey number. Obviously this observation was incorrect. However, he dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant holding that the order passed by the lower Court is correct.
3. Being aggrieved by this order of the Special Deputy Collector the landlord filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal contending that the Special Deputy Collector as well as the tenancy Naib-Tahsildar should have directed the resumption of the whole land. However, the learned Member held that the landholder is entitled to 9 acres 13 gunthas of land which was one-third of the family holding and which was more than half of the total holding leased by the landholder. In this view of the matter the learned Member modified the order passed by the Courts below and allowed the applicant-landlord to resume the land to the extent of 9 acres 13 gunthas. Against this order both the landlord and the tenant filed these writ petitions. Special Civil Application No. 1280 of 1969 has been filed by the tenant whereas Special Civil Application No. 211 of 1970 has been filed by the landholder. As both these Special Civil Applications have been filed against the same order they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.
4. During the pendency of the Special Civil Applications original landlord Gangaprasad died and in his place his legal representative Lilabai was substituted in both the petitions.
5. Shri R. N. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the land-holder, contended before me that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed an error in holding that the landlord was entitled to resume land to the extent of one-third family holding only. According to him, once this finding was recorded that the tenancy was created after 1-4-1957 and the landholder owns land less than one family holding, then the landholder was entitled to resume the whole land. Therefore, the landholder is claiming a relief in the writ petition that the said order of the Revenue Tribunal should be modified and he should be permitted to resume the whole of the land from survey number 11, area 15 acres 26 gunthas.
6. On the other hand, in the tenant's petition, that is, Special Civil Application No. 1280 of 1969, it is contended by Shri P. N. Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner tenant, that the learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal has committed an error in granting the landlord a relief which he has not claimed before the Special Deputy Collector by filing of an appeal under section 107 or a revision application under section 110 of
