IMPORTANT POINT
Procedural defects should not obstruct substantive rights; authorities must provide opportunities for rectification to ensure justice is served.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

The brief facts of the present case are as under :

3. The application of the petitioners, for correction of crop statement and declaration as owner under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "Tenancy Act"), filed before the Tahsildar came to be rejected. Then, the appeal was carried before the Sub-Divisional Officer who maintained the same. Further in appeal before the Additional Collector the order of the Tahsildar was confirmed and lastly before the Divisional Commissioner the revision was dismissed maintaining the order of Tahsildar. Hence, this petition.

4. Ms Raskar, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the revenue record up to 1958 shows that on the tillers' day, the petitioners were in cultivating possession of the lands in question and as such, they have become the owners of the lands in question.

5. She points out that, there are two lands involved in the present proceedings i.e. land Survey No.3-4/1(old Survey No. 27) and 30 (new Survey No.) and the another land Survey No.25(new), 2 (old). It is submitted that so far as the second land is concerned, i.e. Survey No.25, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has already declared that the petitioners have become owners. Whereas, as regards the first land is concerned, because the petitioners were in cultivating possession on the tillers' day, the petitioners became the owners by deeming fiction.

6. It is pointed out that the Tahsildar rejected the application on technical ground i.e. on the ground that, the application was not filed in proper form and was not supported by the verification as required under the Tenancy Act.

7. It is further pointed out that the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application on the ground that some proceeding was pending before the High Court. As such, the Sub-Divisional Officer also did not touch the merits of the matter.

8. It is further pointed out that the Additional Collector rejected the application on the ground that, he has no jurisdiction under the provisions of Tenancy Act to consider the correctness and validity of the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The said order was maintained in revision by the Additional Divisional Commissioner. She thus, submits that none of the authorities below touched the merits of the matter but the application was rejected on technical ground. Accordingly, she submits that the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner, are erroneous and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

9. On the other hand, Shri Bargat learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 to 20 submits that, it is the duty of the petitioners to submit the necessary evidence pointing out that, on tillers' day, they were in possession to claim that, they have become owners of the lands in question. He submits that no document is filed on record and as such, in absence of any such evidence, the orders passed by the lower authorities, are just and proper and need no interference.

10. Shri Deo, learned counsel for the intervenor submits that, his clients have entered into an agreement to sale of the lands in question with the petitioners and therefore, they have right of audience in the present case. He, accordingly, reiterates the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

11. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned A.G.P. submits that, all the authorities have rightly rejected the application of the petitioners as the application was not filed in a proper format under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, as the petitioners are claiming the ownership under the provisions of the Tenancy Act. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.

12. In the light of the rival submissions, I have perused the writ petition, the reply, the documents fil