The power to recall an order made without compliance with the principles of natural justice lies within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) Section 258.

1. Not on board. In view of urgency, taken on production board.

2. Heard Mr. Barge for the petitioner.

3. Time for replacing Exhibit 'B' is extended upto 15th September 2017.

4. The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 24th January 2017 made by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) recalling of order dated 3rd July 2014, in terms of which, the remark 'Devasthan Inam Warag III' in the revenue records, in relation to the suit property was ordered to be deleted.

5. The petitioner, had applied to the Hon'ble Minister for deletion of the aforesaid remark. This deletion was ordered by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) by order dated 3rd July 2014. To this application, the Western Maharashtra Devasthan Committee, was not even impleaded as a respondent. Though, the Collector is shown to be impleaded as a party respondent, there is nothing on record that the Collector, was afforded any opportunity of hearing before the order dated 3rd July 2014 was made. At the highest, some sort of report was called for and on the said basis, the deletion was ordered.

6. The Collector, in his capacity as the President of the Western Maharashtra Devasthan Committee applied for review/recall of the order dated 3rd July 2014, primarily on the ground that the Committee was a necessary party and in the absence of the Committee, no such order of deletion of the remark, of which, would have a very serious effect upon the rights of the Devasthan could have been made. It is on this application that the impugned order dated 24th January 2017 has been made by the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue) recalling the earlier order dated 3rd July 2014.

7. Mr. Barge, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Minister (Revenue), lacks powers of review and therefore, the impugned order is in excess of jurisdiction. In the alternate, he submits that if the impugned order is held to be relatable to the exercise of powers under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC) then, the review petition was required to be instituted within a period of 90 days from the date of passing of the order. In this case, since the review petition was instituted beyond the period of 90 days, and the same was not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Minister (Revenue), lacked jurisdiction to entertain the same. On these two grounds, Mr. Barge submits that the impugned order is required to be set aside.

8. In this case, we are concerned with the property belonging to Devasthan. Devasthan, which is in the nature of a public trust. In regard to such properties, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chenchu Rami Reddy & Anr. vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (1986) 3 SCC 391) has made the following observations:

“More often than not detriment to what belongs to 'many', collectively, does not cause pangs to 'any', for no one is personally hurt directly. That is why public officials and public minded citizens entrusted with the care of 'public property' have to show exemplary vigilance. What is true of 'public property is equally true of property belonging to religious or charitable institutions or endowments. (see para 1)

“We cannot conclude without observing that property of such institutions or endowments must be jealously protected. It must be protected, for, a large segment of the community has beneficial interest in it (that is the raison 'd'etre of the Act itself). The authorities exercising the powers under the Act must not only be most alert and vigilant in such matters but also show awareness of the ways of the present day world as also the ugly realities of the world of today. They cannot afford to take things at their face value or make a less than the closest-and-best-attention approach to guard against all pitfalls. (see para 10).”

9. In this case, the petitioner, without impleading the Temple Committee, almost succeeded in effecting changes in the revenue records, which changes, would have seriously prejudiced the interest of t