Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.G. Sewlikar, R. D. Dhanuka, JJ.
Pankaj Unit No. 1 Housing Development Company Private Limited & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 739, 1023 of 2021 & 2454, 2368, 2457 of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2022
The Bombay High Court quashed the impugned order passed by the State Government granting permission to the Municipal Corporation to initiate a revision application under Section 257(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (MLR Code). The Court held that the impugned order was passed without application of mind, in violation of principles of natural justice, and was arbitrary and capricious.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were the occupants of a portion of land admeasuring 32.375 acres, part of the lands reserved and acquired for Sewerage Purification System (SPS) admeasuring 64.75 acres, out of a larger piece of land bearing survey no.41 of village Oshiwara admeasuring 723 acres, challenged the impugned order dated 31st December, 2020 passed under section 257(1) of the MLR Code. The petitioners contended that the impugned order was passed by the respondent no.1 after lapse of 55 years thereby granting permission under Section 257(1) of the MLR Code to the respondent no.2 to initiate the Revision Application No.27 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.3. It was submitted that the respondent no.3 was not even party to the proceedings arising under Section 4(b) of Salsette Estates Act. The permission thus granted to the respondent no.3 by the State Government to initiate revisions application was totally illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned order was passed without application of mind, in violation of principles of natural justice, and was arbitrary and capricious. The Court held that the State Government could not have granted permission to the respondent no.3 Corporation to initiate the revision application after expiry of 55 years mechanically and that also without application of mind and without following the principles of natural justice. The Court further held that the respondent no.3 Corporation was not a party to the proceedings before the Mamlatdar or Additional Collector and had applied for permission to initiate the revision application basically on the ground that huge amount of public money is required to be paid in acquiring the lands i.e. 64.75 acres used for the SPS. The Court also held that the State Government while passing the impugned order had not considered the Statement of Objects and Reasons and the purpose and legislative intent for inserting proviso to amended Section 257(1) of the MLR Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the impugned order dated 31st December 2020/8th January 2021 passed by the State Government is valid and legal? 2. Whether the State Government was required to grant any personal hearing before passing the impugned order including recording reasons in the impugned order or not? 3. Whether the State Government could have granted permission to initiate the revision application after expiry of more than 55 years from the date of the order of Mamlatdar dated 15th April, 1964 and order dated 9th January, 1965 passed by the Additional Collector mechanically? 4. Whether the revisional authority can consider the issue of delay in filing an application under section 257(1) for seeking permission? 5. Whether the writ petitions impugning the order passed by the State Government granting permission to initiate revision application filed by the respondent no.3 are premature and cannot be entertained on the ground that the merits of the revision application filed by the respondent n.3 is not yet decided and is yet to be heard by the revisional authority on merit? 6. Whether the provisions of section 257 of the MLR Code empowering the State Government to grant permission to initiate the revision application is analogous to the provisions of section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1963 or not?
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the impugned order passed by the State Government granting permission to the Municipal Corporation to initiate the revision application was totally perverse, without application of mind and was contrary to proviso to Section 257(1) of the MLR Code. The Court also held that the impugned order was in violation of principles of natural justice, arbitrary and capricious.
Final Decision: The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 31st December 2020/8th January 2021 passed by the State Government. The Court also dismissed the revision application filed by the respondent no.3 Corporation and the application filed by the respondent no.3 Corporation for seeking permission to initiate the revision application under Section 257(1) of the MLR Code, 1966.
JUDGEMENT :
R. D. Dhanuka, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forth with. Learned counsel for the respective respondents waive service. This batch of petitions were heard together and are being disposed off by a common judgment.
Facts and Submissions in Writ Petition No. 739 of 2021
2. During the period between 2nd October 1860 to 1948, by a kowl/grant dated 2nd October 1860, the Principal Collector of Konkan (on behalf of the East India Company) granted inter alia the entire village Oshiwara, including Survey No.41, admeasuring 723 acres and 30 gunthas in favour of the predecessors-in-title of Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited (Respondent no.6), without the requirement to pay land revenue.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.6 spent over Rs.2,00,000/- prior to the year 1847 for development of the Larger Land for construction of salt pans. The respondent no.6 and its predecessor-in-title executed various contracts with several parties for collecting limestone, palm trees, oyster shells and for fishing, in addition to selling rights to remove sand, earth, moor boats and collect salt. In the year 1948, the Larger Land was reserved for non-agricultural and industrial development. On 4th January 1952, the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition), 1951 (for short “the said Salsette Estate Act) came into force.
4. Some time in the year 1961, a part of the Larger Land was notified for acquisition by the State Government for the purposes of housing. On 25th January 1964, the respondent no.6 executed an Agreement to sale for a part of the Larger Land to one M/s.New Swastik Land Corporation (hereinafter referred to “New Swastik”). The respondent no.6 had to adopt legal proceedings against New Swastik in view of New Swastik having failed to complete the same. On 15th April 1964, the Mamlatdar, Andheri conducted an enquiry under Section 4 of the Salsette Estates Act in order to ascertain whether the Larger Land was “waste lands” and also whether the respondent no.6 or its predecessors-in-title had “appropriated” the Larger Land before 14th August 1951.
5. By an order dated 15th April 1964, the Mamlatdar, Andheri conducted an eqnuiry under Section 4 of the Salsette Estates Act and ascertained that in any event, the larger land was appropriated by the estate holders much prior to 14th August 1951. The State of Maharashtra filed an appeal before the Additional Collector, Bombay Suburban District, Bombay impugning the said order dated 15th April 1964 passed by the Mamlatdar.
6. By an order dated 9th January 1965 the said appeal preferred by the State of Maharashtra came to be dismissed by the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector upheld the decision of the Mamlatdar that the said larger land was not a “waste land.” The Additional Collector held that the said larger land cannot be declared to be the property of the State under Section 4 of the Salsette Estates Act.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that a suit bearing No.660 of 1968 was filed by the respondent no.6 against the said New Swastik in this Court for specific performance of the Agreement to Sale dated 25th January 1964. Those parties filed the consent terms under which the larger land (or whatever balance portion remained thereof) was conveyed and transferred to Oshiwara Land Development Company Private Limited, the respondent no.7 herein as Assignee of the said New Swastik. This Court passed a decree in terms of the consent terms. The said consent terms recorded that out of the total area of the larger land, an area admeasuring approximately 177 acres 17 and half gunthas was acquired by MHADA for the purpose of developing housing schemes and accordingly the said area was excluded from the land agreed to be sold to the respondent no.7 under the said Consent Decree.
8. It is the case of the petitioners that during the period between 1965 to 2020, the said order passed by the Additional Collector on 9th January 1965 was acted upon by the petitioner
The State Government could not have granted permission to the respondent no.3 Corporation to initiate the revision application after expiry of 55 years mechanically and that also without application ....
The revisional jurisdiction under Section 9 of the ROR Act cannot be exercised after a long delay, and the settled rights of a person under the ROR Act cannot be unsettled after a lapse of more than ....
The delay of 11 years in exercising suo motu powers renders such actions arbitrary, violating established legal rights under registered sale deeds.
The Deputy Collector's notice issued beyond the one-year limit for calling records under the Tenancy Act was void, emphasizing the necessity of application of mind in such proceedings.
The State Government does not have the power to review its own orders unless such power is specifically conferred by statute. The State Government cannot exercise its power of review after a long del....
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
