Back
2024 Supreme(Bom) 231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
S.G. MEHARE, J.
Venkat S/o Sonnappa Sagar – Petitioner
Versus
Kailas Guru Nutan Puri – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 12082 of 2019
Decided On : 30-01-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: G.N. Chincholkar.
For the Respondents: Santosh N. Patne, R.R. Tandale.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of following the statutory provisions regarding locus to object to succession claims, condonation of delay, and the jurisdiction of the Atiyat Court in determining succession claims.
Headnote:
Succession Claim - Dispute over field survey nos. 468 and 469 - Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act 1952, Rules 1952 - The court held that the petitioner had locus to oppose the succession claim, the delay in the claim of succession could not be condoned for more than six months, and the Atiyat Court did not have the power to determine the claim of succession. The matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh disposal.
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over field survey nos. 468 and 469 in Osmanabad regarding succession claim. The petitioner claimed to have been cultivating the fields since prior to 1973, while respondent no. 1 claimed succession based on adoption deed and virasat certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had locus to oppose the succession claim, the delay in the claim of succession could not be condoned for more than six months, and the Atiyat Court did not have the power to determine the claim of succession.
Issues: Locus of the petitioner to object to the succession claim, condonation of delay in the claim of succession, and the power of the Atiyat Court to determine the claim of succession.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner had locus to oppose the succession claim as he had an interest in the suit fields. The delay in the claim of succession could not be condoned for more than six months. The Atiyat Court did not have the power to determine the claim of succession and should have directed the parties to get the dispute decided in the competent Civil Court.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the previous orders were quashed and set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Sub-Divisional Officer for fresh disposal.
JUDGMENT :
S.G. MEHARE, J.
1. The petitioner has made the following prayers:
“(A) This writ petition may kindly be allowed.
(B) Notices may be issued to the respondents and Record and proceedings may kindly be called for.
(C) By passing an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 10.7.2019 passed by Member (Adm.) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad in Case no. 25/B/2018 Osmanabad.
(D) By passing an appropriate writ, order or directions to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 30.4.2016 passed by S.D.O. alias Deputy Collector, (Atiyat) Osmanabad in Case No. 2011/Atiyat/Kavi-640.
(E) Alternatively petitioner is praying to remand the matter back by setting aside the judgment and order dated 10.7.2019 passed by Member (Adm.) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad in Case no. 25/B/2018 Osmanabad arising out of judgment and order dated 30.4.2016 passed by S.D.O. cum Deputy Collector, (Atiyat) Osmanabad in Case no. 2011/Atiyat/Kavi-640 and it may be decided after hearing both side afresh.
(F) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition the further impugned the judgment and order dated 10.7.2019 passed by Member (Adm.) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Aurangabad in Case no. 25/B/2018 Osmanabad arising out of judgment and order dated 30.4.2016 passed by S.D.O. cum Deputy Collector, (Atiyat) Osmanabad in Case no. 2011/Atiyat/Kavi-640 and judgment and order dated 17.11.2017 passed by Add. Collector, Osmanabad in case no. 2017/Sapra/Dharmik/Kavi. 466 may kindly be stayed
(G) Any other suitable and equitable relief may pleased be granted in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. and learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
3. The dispute is about the field survey nos. 468 and 469, situated at Osmanabad. The petitioner has a case that the previous Mathpati Nutan Puri Guru Dhanraj inducted him into the said fields and he has been cultivating the suit fields since prior to 1973 till the date of filing of this writ petition. One Apparao Bhosale had filed a Civil Suit No. 4/1973 against the previous Mathpati Nutan Puri Guru Dhanraj Puri. The said suit was decreed against Mathpati Nutan Puri. He was a tenant of the suit fields. That the suit fields were for the service of Ganesh Math.
4. Respondent no. 1 had filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector (Atiyat), Osmanabad on 18.06.2015 and claimed that he was the disciple (chela) of deceased Guru Nutan Puri. The deceased Guru Nutan Puri adopted him, therefore, he inherited the suit fields. Before the Sub-Divisional Officer, he produced the death certificate of Inamdar, Adoption Deed and Virasat Certificate i.e. Muntakhab along with delay condonation application. The Sub-Divisional Officer cum Deputy Collector published the proclamation under Section 8 of Hyderabad Atiyat Inquiries Act 1952 (‘the Act 1952’ for short) on 18.02.2016 and invited the objections within six weeks from the public or the person having interest. The objections were not received; hence, respondent no. 1 by the order dated 30.04.2016, was held the heir of Guru Nutan Guru Dhanraj on the basis of adoption deed. The petitioner impugned the said order in appeal before the Additional Collector, Aurangabad. He contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer passed the order without the adoption deed on record. The Collector observed that the objections were not received within six weeks and a public notice was published in Government Gazette and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner took the said order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad by Revision No. 25/B/2018. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also dismissed the revision on 10.07.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the delay of more than three years could not be condoned if the application of virasat is filed. It is an outer limit for condonation of delay as provided under Rule 12(1)(d) of Hyderabad
