The main legal point established in the judgment is that the S.D.O. does not have the authority to declare a sale-deed invalid under Section 89 of the Tenancy Act, and only the Tahsildar is empowered to do so under Section 122 of the Act.

JUDGMENT:- By the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 4-101985, passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati in Revenue Case No.59/82/ Bhankhedakhd-20/1985-86 as well as the order dated 30th October, 1987, passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revision Application No.Ten-A-166/ 1986.

2. FACTS :- The petitioner purchased field survey Nos.36, 37 and 38 of Mauje Bhankheda, District Amravati, admeasuring 6.30 acres by registered sale-deed dated 16-5-1979 from Jaisingh Jagannathsingh Rathod. In the year 1985, Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati initiated proceedings against him under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act) by registering Revenue Case No.59/(32)/ Bhankhedakhd-20/1985-86 on the ground that sale-deed obtained by him was not valid as the petitioner had not obtained permission from the Collector/S.D.O. under Section 89 of the Act. The petitioner, however, stated that he is an agriculturist having land of his own at Kothewad in Gujrat State and was also doing business of dairy farming and as such he falls within the meaning of definition of agriculturist under the Act. Petitioner also opposed the proceedings by raising preliminary objection that the jurisdiction to declare sale-deed invalid under any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act under Section 122 was with Tahsildar and not with Sub-Divisional Officer, and therefore, the proceedings initiated by S.D.O. were without authority of law. Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati, however, made an order on 4-10-1985 and invalidated the sale-deed in the name of petitioner for want of permission under Section 89 of the Tenancy Act and directed that his land vested in the State.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 107 of the Tenancy Act to the Collector, Amravati, who held that the appeal was not maintainable before him as the powers of Collector were exercised by the S.D.O. vide order dated 9-121985. Petitioner then preferred revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur under Section III of the Act and challenged the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati. Since there was delay in filing revision application before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, an application was filed for condonation of delay in filing revision. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejected application for condonation of delay in filing revision as well as revision on the ground that the same was time barred. Being aggrieved by those orders, petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition.

4. ARGUMENTS: Shri. Bhuibhar, learned Counsel appeared for petitioner and argued that the Sub-Divisional Officer had acted without jurisdiction and as such the order passed by S.D.O. being without jurisdiction may be quashed and set aside. Apart from that he further argued that the authority superior in hierarchy by deciding the matter in question, which ought to have been decided by Tahsildar, has taken away the right of appeal provided under Section 247 r/w Schedule (E) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He invited my attention to Sections 2(A), 89, 107, 122 of the Tenancy Act and Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. He also took me through the order made by Collector, dismissing appeal as not maintainable and agreed that the Collector has rightly passed the order. While criticising the order, made by M.R.T. refusing condonation of delay in filing revision and dismissing the revision on the ground of delay, he argued that the reason that was given was that though the order of Collector was known to the Counsel for petitioner, the same could not be communicated to the petitioner, as the petitioner had left for Gujrat and his address was not known to his Counsel. This statement was not controverted by the other side, and therefore, there was no reason for the M.R.T. to reject the application for condonation of delay in filing revision or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document