Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABA
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J
Sandip Aniruddh Jadhav – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2. Petitioner challenges order dated 23/06/2014 passed by the Minister of Revenue, State of Maharashtra, in Revision No. ROR/5300/2014 along with the order dated 21/10/2013 passed by respondent No.2 Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad, in Revision No.ROR/149/2012.
3. Petitioners' father Aniruddha Santaram Jadhav was protected tenant of the land admeasuring 6 Acre 31 Are in Survey No.164, situated at Jalna. Hence, the petitioners are owners and possessors of the said land as protected tenants. In view of the fact that their father was protected tenant, the said land is not capable of being alienated without permission of the Collector as provided under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the said Act’). In spite of that, Aniruddha Santaram, Prayagbai Santaram, Avantikabai Santaram and Sulochana Santaram have executed sale deed of the land to the extent of 6 Acre 31 Are from Survey No.164 in favour of respondent No.5 Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company. The transaction has taken place without obtaining prior permission of the Collector as provided under Section
Sale deeds executed without prior permission under Section 50-B of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act are invalid and cannot be regularized post facto.
The mutation of self-acquired property requires a relinquishment deed and cannot be authorized by revenue authorities without jurisdiction, particularly when delay in appeal is not condoned.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of a mutation must adhere to the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions, and the authority reviewing the muta....
A land sale finalized under old tenure is valid without needing permission, and re-opening resolved disputes requires substantial justification; delay affects maintainability of claims.
The main legal point established is that the absence of permission and validation under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agriculture Land Act 1950 renders a sale transaction void and unlawful.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limitation period for exercising suo-motu revisional power and the validity of a sale deed executed without permission from the Collector.
A simple sale deed cannot be regularized after a lengthy delay without adhering to statutory procedures, highlighting jurisdiction issues and due process in land disputes.
The main legal point established is the requirement of notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing orders under Sec.5(3) of the A.P. Record of Rights in Land and Pattedar Passb....
The court established that transactions involving agricultural land require prior permission under the Tenancy Act, and failure to obtain such permission renders the transaction void.
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
