Back
2013 Supreme(Bom) 1940
BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT NAGPUR
A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Tulsabai Deokaran Agrawal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 3640 of 2003
Decided On : September 26, 2013
Advocate Appeared
For petitioner: Sukhada Tatwawadi
For respondent Nos. 1 to 3: Ms. S.S. Jachak, A.G.P.
The revisional authority has the power to examine the validity of relevant orders and there is no limitation period for filing a revision. Sections 6 and 7 of the Fragmentation Act are mandatory in nature.
Headnote:
Fragmentation Act - Challenge to Revisional Order - Section 9 - Section 35 - The court discussed the legality and propriety of the orders passed under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It highlighted the mandatory nature of sections 6 and 7, the power of the revisional authority to examine the validity of relevant orders, and the absence of any limitation period for filing a revision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a revisional order that set aside orders related to the declaration of a fragment and subsequent permission for purchase under section 9 of the Fragmentation Act. The petitioner argued that the first order was beyond limitation and that there was no issue raised about the want of notice under section 6(2) of the Fragmentation Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revisional authority had the power to examine the validity of the relevant orders and highlighted the mandatory nature of sections 6 and 7. It also held that the revision was filed within a reasonable period and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: Challenge to revisional order, limitation period for filing a revision, want of notice under section 6(2) of the Fragmentation Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The revisional authority has the power to examine the validity of relevant orders. The absence of any limitation period for filing a revision and the mandatory nature of sections 6 and 7 were highlighted.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
1. Heard.
2. By the present petition the petitioner has put to challenge a common revisional order dated 13th May, 2003 passed by Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Revision Petition Nos. 31/PFG/2000-2001 and 32/PFG/2000-2001 of Sonari, Tq. Murtizapur, Distt. Akola by which the revisional authority set aside orders dated 19-2-1996 and 30-9-2000 in the matter of declaration of fragment and subsequent permission under section 9 for purchase of the fragment.
3. In support of the writ petition Ms. Sukhada Tatwawadi, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the first order was passed on 19-2-1996 by the Sub Divisional Officer holding that the respondent trust purchased a fragment without permission and in violation of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Fragmentation Act’ for brevity) and the said order was not put to challenge in the revision. She further argued that the revision was filed in the year 2000 and still there was no prayer to quash the said order dated 19-2-1996 in the revision but prayer clause (b) related only to the order dated 30th September, 2000 which was made under section 9 of the Act. The order dated 19-2-1996 was not specifically challenged in the prayer clause though there is a reference in prayer clause (a) to call for the record in respect of the said order also. She, however, submitted that the order made in the year 1996 could not be put to challenge in the year 2000 and was beyond limitation. The learned counsel for the petitioner then contended that there was no issue raised about want of notice under section 6(2) of the Fragmentation Act and therefore, the revisional authority could not have interfered with the orders which have been set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the writ petition and supported the impugned order passed by the revisional authority as legal, correct and proper.
5. I have perused the impugned orders, so also the record and proceedings. The prayers in the revision read thus:
“a) call for the record in R.C. No. PFG-3 1/Sonori/1/93-96 from the file of the respondent No. 1 decided on 19-2-1996 and 30-9-2000;
b) quash and set aside the impugned order passed on 30-9-2000 in R.C. No. PFG31/Sonori/1, 95-96, being illegal, invalid and improper;
c) grant any other consequential relief which this Hon'ble Authority deems fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the matter and also in the interest of justice.”
6. It is not in dispute that order dated 19-2-1996 was passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in the proceedings which were registered on a complaint made by the villagers of village Sonori for cancellation of the sale deed of the alleged fragment and not for permission to purchase under section 9(2) of the Fragmentation Act at the behest of the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under section 9(3) of the Fragmentation Act for purchase of the said alleged fragment and it is on that application order dated 30-9-2000 was passed granting permission to the petitioner. Thus, the second order i.e. dated 30-9-2000 was the effective order to deprive the purchaser of the suit property since there is a direction to the purchaser of the suit property and the original owner to effect sale deed in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it is clear that the effective order was order dated 30-9-2000 which was immediately challenged in the revisional jurisdiction. Even otherwise, order dated 30-9-2000 was fully dependent on the earlier order dated 19-2-1996. The said order dated 19-2-1996 could be examined by the revisional authority though there is no prayer clause for setting aside order dated 19-2-1996, looking to the language of section 35 of the Fragmentation Act. Section 35 of the Fragmentation Act is reproduced below:
“35. Power of State Government or Commissioner to call for proceedings.
The State Government or the C
