Back
Z.A.HAQ
Nago Hari Zangte – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Case Details: - High Court of Bombay at Nagpur Bench, Z.A. Haq, J., Writ Petition No. 2977/2012, decided on 17.11.2014. (!)
Subject Matter: - Land dispute concerning right of way.[judgement_subject]
Relevant Provisions: - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: Sections 143(4), 143(5), 247.[judgement_act_referred] - Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5 (condonation of delay).[judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!)
Factual Background: - Petitioners filed application before Tahsildar claiming right of way through fields of respondents 6 and 7; Tahsildar allowed it on 7th September, 2007.[4000497050003] - Lok Adalat award dated 27th January, 2008 purportedly recorded compromise for Tahsildar to examine and recommend way.[4000497050003][4000497050005] - Respondent No. 5 and wife filed civil suit under Section 143(4) on 30th June, 2009 challenging Tahsildar order; delayed, condonation application rejected, suit dismissed.[4000497050003] (!) [4000497050008] - Respondents 5, 6, 7 filed appeal under Section 247 before Sub-Divisional Officer (dismissed); Additional Collector allowed appeal on 29th December, 2010, remitted for fresh enquiry; Commissioner upheld.[4000497050002] (!)
Ruling on Lok Adalat Award: - Award copy does not show names of signatories to compromise terms; no evidence respondents 5, 6, 7 accepted or signed it.[4000497050005] - Respondents 5, 6, 7 not bound; entitled to pursue legal remedies.[4000497050005]
Ruling on Maintainability of Appeal under Section 247 vis-à-vis Civil Suit under Section 143(4): - Civil suit by respondent No. 5 and wife dismissed as time-barred, not on merits; respondents 6 and 7 filed no suit.[4000497050006] - Section 143(5) bars appeal/revision only if civil suit "instituted" under Section 143(4); "institute" means to begin/commence suit. (!) (!) - Delayed suit not instituted until condonation application under Limitation Act Section 5 granted; court lacks jurisdiction pre-condonation; suit not registered.[4000497050008][4000497050009] (!) - Condonation application not part of civil suit itself.[4000497050009]
Outcome: - No interference with Additional Collector's remand order; no material irregularity.[4000497050010] - Writ petition dismissed; parties bear own costs.[4000497050010]
Z.A. Haq, J.
1. Heard Shri A.B. Mirza, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms Tajwar Khan, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents 1 to 4 and Shri M.P. Kariya, the learned advocate for the respondents 5 and 6.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Collector by which the appeal filed by the respondents 5, 6 and 7 is allowed and the matter is remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh enquiry and decision. The petitioners have also challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner rejecting the revision filed by the petitioners and upholding the order passed by the learned Additional Collector.
4. The petitioners had filed an application before the Tahsildar claiming right of way for their fields through southern side of field Gat Nos.141/1, 141/2, 137 and 138 owned by the respondents 6 and 7. The Tahsildar by the order dated 7th September, 2007 allowed the application filed by the petitioners and granted right of way as sought by the petitioners. The petitioners relied on the award which according to them has been passed by the Loknyayalaya on 27th January, 2008 recording
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
