Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 2194
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
Union of India through Deputy Salt Commissioner - Appellant
Versus
Alark Laxman Desai (Executors and Trustee of the Will of Late Shri Narayan Moreshwar Kirtikar) - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 557 of 2014
Decided On : 16-08-2016
For the Union of India :Mr. Anil C. Singh, Additional Solicitor General a/w Mr. Sandesh Patil, Mr. S.R. Raj Guru, Dr. G.R. Sharma and Mr. D.P. Singh and Yash Momaya, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. C.G. Gavnekar a/w Mr. G.S. Hiranandani and Mr. Suhas Deokar, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy of a civil suit referred to in Section 20(4) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 was not excluded by the directions of the Apex Court, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the Union of India.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Civil Suit - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 20(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Regulation No. 1 of 1799, Regulation of 1808, Regulation of 1827, Code of 1879, Record of Rights Act, 1903, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - The court analyzed the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the suit filed by the Union of India in light of the directions of the Apex Court and the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India filed a civil suit seeking ownership of a property used for salt manufacturing. The lower courts held that the suit was not maintainable due to the directions of the Apex Court and the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in concluding that the civil suit was not maintainable solely based on the directions of the Apex Court. It held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit as the remedy of a civil suit was referred to in Section 20(4) of the Code.
Issues: The main issue was whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the suit filed by the Union of India in light of the directions of the Apex Court and the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the remedy of a civil suit was not excluded by the directions of the Apex Court and the provisions of Section 20(2) of the Code. It emphasized that a civil suit is maintainable unless expressly shown otherwise and that the Apex Court's directions did not bar the Union of India from filing a civil suit to challenge the orders of the Collector.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgments were quashed and set aside. The Civil Suit was restored to file for expeditious disposal by the lower court.
N.M. JAMDAR, J.
1. The Union of India through the Deputy Salt Commissioner, Mumbai, has filed this Appeal. The Union of India challenges the judgment and order dated 31 December 2013 passed by the District Judge, Thane confirming the judgment and order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane, dated 1 January 2012. Both the Courts have held that the civil suit filed by the Union of India is not maintainable and have allowed the application filed by the Respondents for rejection of the plaint.
2. The suit property is situated at village Rai Murdhe, taluka and district Thane. It measures 14 hectares and 32 Ares. The Respondents use the land for manufacturing salt.
3. The history of statutory enactments governing the ownership of the salt land in this area dates back to two and half centuries. Regulation No. 1 of 1799 was enacted constituting a code for the management of the British territories in the Presidency of Bombay. Regulations were framed in the year 1808 to deal with the allotment of the lands on a fixed rent. The Governor General in Council recognised the right of the occupants by charging a fixed rent. Under the Regulation of the year 1827, the authorities were under mandate to maintain register of title deeds. This regulation dealt with various aspects such as the transfer, mortgage and such other incidental issues regarding the lands. Thereafter Code of 1879 was framed, followed by Record of Rights Act, 1903. After the independence, Maharashtra Land Revenue Code 1966, was brought into force and it is applicable to lands as on today.
4. The license issued for manufacture of salt to the Ganpati Prasad Salt Works of the Respondents ended on 30 June 1983. On 11 July 1983, the Union of India issued a notice to various salt manufacturers, including Respondents to take the land on lease from the Government on certain terms and conditions. The Respondents filed a Writ Petition no.1151 of 1984 challenging the action of the Union of India and for a direction to the Union of India to renew the license in favour of the Respondents and to withdraw the notice dated 11 July 1983. Similar challenge was also raised by various other salt work owners. The Division bench of this Court in writ petition No. 2333 of 1983 directed to renew the licenses of the various manufacturers. Following the view taken in Writ Petition No. 2333 of 1983, the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent was partly allowed on 1 April 1992. The Division bench directed the Union of India to renew the license of the Respondent without insisting upon requisitions set out in the notice dated 11 July 1983. The Union of India challenged the order passed in Writ Petition No. 1151 of 1984 and the orders passed in companion writ petitions, in the Apex Court. The Apex Court disposed of this group of matters. The Apex Court, in Civil Appeal No. 6743 of 1996, in respect of the Respondent, noted that no decision of title has been given by any authority in the case of Respondents and the Respondents were directed to file their claim before the Competent Authority i.e. Collector/District Magistrate as the case may be, within one month. The Competent Authority was directed to issue notice to the Appellant, and after considering the material and affording opportunity of hearing and taking into consideration the legal position, was directed to dispose of the proceedings. Subject to the result of the decision renewal of license was directed. The Apex Court accordingly disposed of the appeal on 25 March 1996.
5. Pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court, the Respondents, on 20 April 1996, filed an application to the Collector, Thane. The application specified that it was filed under Section 20(2) of the Land Revenue Code, 1966. It prayed for a decision that the claim of the Union of India for ownership of Survey no.244 is incorrect and the suit land is in possession of the Respondents since long period of time and accordingly an inquiry be instituted. The Union of India f
