IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G.S. Kulkarni, J.
Devsing Ramchandra Chavan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5483 of 2021
Decided On : 18-04-2022
The directions of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency's case (supra) in paragraph 36 and 37 operate only qua the criminal and civil cases pending trial, and such directions cannot be construed to be applicable to the other category of orders in proceedings which do not stay the trial of the civil or criminal cases. Such orders of the Supreme Court are also not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunals.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute between the parties before the Revenue Tribunal, Pune, concerns a land situated at Village Boroti, Taluka - Akkalkot, District - Solapur. There was a old previous litigation between the parties, which according to the petitioner culminated into final orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 17 March, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that however despite such orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal in petitioner's favour, which recognized the petitioner's rights on such land as also the consequent revenue entries made in that regard, the Tahsildar, Akkalkot had passed an order dated 6 December, 2016 whereby the petitioner's rights as reflected in the revenue records in respect of Survey no. 115 as a tenant in implementation of the orders dated 6 December, 2016 of the trial authority, namely that of the Tahsildar.
Finding of the Court:
The directions of the Supreme Court in paragraph 36 and 37 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency's case, would not apply to a category of orders passed by the Civil Court or the Criminal Court which do not have the effect of stay of the proceedings of the trial before the said Courts, as also to the orders passed by the tribunals.
Issues: Whether the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, was correct in applying the orders and observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing Road Agency's case (supra), to hold that the interim relief granted by the Revenue Tribunal in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 10 December 2018 stood automatically vacated on a period of more than six months having passed.
Ratio Decidendi: The directions of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency's case (supra) in paragraph 36 and 37 operate only qua the criminal and civil cases pending trial, and such directions cannot be construed to be applicable to the other category of orders in proceedings which do not stay the trial of the civil or criminal cases. Such orders of the Supreme Court are also not applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunals.
Final Decision: The impugned order dated 23 June, 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bench at Pune is quashed and set aside holding that the interim stay as granted by the tribunal continues to operate unless vacated by a speaking order. It is open to the respondents to make an application for vacating of the interim order passed by the Revenue Tribunal.
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed challenging an order dated 23 June, 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bench at Pune (for short 'the Revenue Tribunal') by which the Revenue Tribunal has held that an interim stay which was granted by it to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer confirming the orders passed by the Tehsildar as impugned in the revision proceedings filed by the petitioner, stood automatically vacated in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation', (2018)16 SCC 299.
2. Thus, the issue which arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, was correct in applying the orders and observations of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 36 and 37 of its judgment in the case of Asian Resurfacing Road Agency's case (supra), to hold that the interim relief granted by the Revenue Tribunal in favour of the petitioner by an order dated 10 December 2018 stood automatically revoked on a period of more than six months having passed.
3. In brief, the relevant facts are:- The dispute between the parties before the Revenue Tribunal, Pune, concerns a land situated at Village Boroti, Taluka - Akkalkot, District - Solapur. There was a old previous litigation between the parties, which according to the petitioner culminated into final orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 17 March, 1971. The case of the petitioner is that however despite such orders passed by the Revenue Tribunal in petitioner's favour, which recognized the petitioner's rights on such land as also the consequent revenue entries made in that regard, the Tahsildar, Akkalkot had passed an order dated 6 December, 2016 whereby the petitioner's rights as reflected in the revenue records in the 'other rights column' were sought to be de-recognized. The petitioner challenged the said order passed by the Tahsildar in an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO). The SDO, by an order dated 28 November, 2017 confirmed the order dated 6 December, 2016 passed by the Tahsildar against which the petitioner filed the revision in question, before the Revenue Tribunal (Revision Application No.SH-II 05/2018) under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948. On such revision application filed by the petitioner, an interim order dated 10 December, 2018, came to be passed by the tribunal, whereby the order passed by the SDO and subject matter of the challenge in the proceedings of the revision, came to be stayed by the Revenue Tribunal till further date, while issuing notice to the respondents. The said order of the Revenue Tribunal needs to be noted, which reads thus:-
'' Order below 'Stay appln' in Revision No. SH/II/5/2018 Matter is taken on board at the request of Ld. Advocate for the applicant. He has produced notice issued by Dy. Supdt. of Land Records, Akkalkot, dated 21/11/2018 and submitted that if the stay to the impugned order is not granted, multiplicity of litigation will be created.
Read the judgment & order passed by both the tribunals below. Matter is pending at the stage of 'hearing before admission'. Therefore, when the matter is called on Board by showing urgency, I have no alternative other than to pass the following interim order with time limit.
Order
The judgment & order passed by SDO, which is under challenge in the revision application is hereby stayed till further date. However, this date shall not be interpreted for any of the purposes in respect of the action proposed under the notice dated 21/11/2018.
Issue notice to the respondents as to why the stay granted should not be made absolute till the decision of the stage of revision application i.e. 'hearing before admission'.
Matter is fixed on 20/12/2018.
Petitioner is directed to serve fresh notices by E-Mail to all the respondents and also issue fresh notices on the given addresses at the cost a
Abdul Kayoom Vs. CIT (AIR 1962 SC 680)
Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation"
Chandrasekhar Singh Vs. Siya Ram Singh
Imtiyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P.
Khalil Ahmed Bashir Ahmed Vs. Tufelhussein Samasbhai Sarangpurwala
L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India
Ranjeet Singh Vs. Ravi Prakash
The mandatory nature of Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India and the need to prevent abuse of interim orders.
(1) An interim order lawfully passed by a Court after hearing all contesting parties is not rendered illegal only due to long passage of time – If a High Court concludes after hearing all concerned p....
The judgment emphasizes the need for a speaking order to extend the stay beyond six months, as per the judgment in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited and another Vs. Central Bureau of I....
Point of law : Jurisdiction of High Court is not barred irrespective of label of a petition, be it under Section 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of Constitution.
Stay of criminal proceedings by the High Courts should not be considered as an incentive to cause delay in the proceedings; that order granting stay or extending it must be a speaking order and stay ....
Interim orders extended in the presence of parties cannot be vacated automatically under Article 226(3) without a hearing on merit.
The Supreme Court's ruling on the 'six months stay' mandate applies to all pending civil and criminal cases, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of cases and the adverse effects of court-gr....
The Court cannot grant interim relief after a certificate for appeal has been issued, as it lacks jurisdiction to modify dismissed orders.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.