The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the power of the Revenue Officer under Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, in the context of acquisition and vesting of lands, and the effect of such power on the rights of land owners and the acquiring body.

JUDGMENT :

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.

2. All these writ petitions raise a common point for consideration, which pertains to the true scope and interpretation of Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said question is raised specifically in the backdrop of acquisition of lands in question and vesting of such lands in the acquiring body. The petitioner – Western Coalfields Limited (WCL), being the acquiring body, is contending that upon acquisition and vesting of the lands in question, the revenue authorities under Section 155 of the said Code cannot exercise jurisdiction to carry out any correction in the revenue record. The impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar have been directly challenged in these writ petitions, despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal, on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions are that the petitioner – WCL acquired lands of the private respondents i.e. the land owners under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1957”). The lands belonging to the respondent – land owners were acquired for opening new coal mines and accordingly, Notifications were issued under the Act of 1957, in order to initiate and complete the process of acquisition of lands belonging to the respondent – land owners. The WCL claimed to have acquired the lands and taken possession thereof, at which stage the lands belonging to the respondent – land owners were recorded in the revenue record as non-irrigated lands. This entry in the revenue record did have a crucial bearing on the determination of quantum of compensation, because compensation for irrigated land can be much higher than compensation for non-irrigated land.

4. The respondent – land owners filed applications under Section 155 of the Code. Along with the applications, the respondent – land owners filed certain documents before the respondent – Tahsildar, claiming that the lands were wrongly recorded as non-irrigated lands and that the entry ought to be corrected to irrigated lands. On 11/07/2016, the respondent – Tahsildar passed an order, exercising power under Section 155 of the Code and directed that the lands of the respondent – land owners be recorded as irrigated lands.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL filed number of Writ Petitions before this Court. On 15/10/2019, this Court in Writ Petition No. 2474 of 2017 (WCL Vs. Tahsildar, Kamthee and another), held that while passing the aforesaid order dated 11/07/2016, notice was not issued to the petitioner – WCL. This Court set aside the said order dated 11/07/2016, passed by the Tahsildar, only on the said ground of absence of notice to the petitioner – WCL and directed the Tahsildar to decide the proceedings afresh by granting opportunity to all the concerned parties.

6. Pursuant to the matters being remanded to the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL was heard in the proceedings. By orders dated 09/01/2020, the respondent – Tahsildar held that no alteration was required in the aforesaid orders dated 11/07/2016, as a consequence of which the correction of the entry as irrigated lands was upheld.

7. Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL has filed these Writ Petitions.

8. Mr. C.S. Samudra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – WCL in these petitions submitted that the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar were without jurisdiction, for the reason that once the lands were acquired and they stood vested with the petitioner – WCL, the revenue authorities under the Code had no power or authority to deal with any aspect pertaining to the said lands. It was submitted that equally the respondent – land owners had lost the capacity to file and maintain applica