The Divisional Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to revoke sale permission under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, as no appellate remedy is provided in the statute, making the cancellation of permission legally impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. The challenge in this petition arises from the order dated 1 August 2014 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune. By the said order, a purported appeal was entertained, and the sale permission dated 13 December 2010 granted in favour of the petitioner’s vendor, respondent No.6, under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act , 1999 was revoked. This permission had already been acted upon by execution of a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The subject land forms part of Gat No.36, which was originally owned by respondent No.6 as on 8 May 1995. Respondent No.6 had executed an agreement to sell in favour of one Satish Tanksale on that date. Satish Tanksale has, till date, not filed any suit for specific performance. On 15 July 2010, respondent No.6 applied to respondent No.4 under Section 12 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking permission to transfer the land to the petitioner. On 13 December 2010, respondent No.4 granted such permission. Pursuant thereto, on 31 March 2011, respondent No.6 executed a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner and handed over possession. On 25 April 2011, the petitioner’s name was entered in the revenue record by mutation entry No.1579. Thereafter, on 19 April 2011, Satish Tanksale executed an agreement in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2, on the basis of which they claim rights allegedly flowing from the agreement to sell dated 8 May 1995.

2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 thereafter started interfering with the petitioner’s possession over the land. The petitioner, therefore, filed Special Civil Suit No.1736 of 2011 on 30 August 2011 seeking an injunction to restrain respondent Nos.1 and 2 from disturbing his possession. The Trial Court granted the injunction on 10 May 2012. The said order was confirmed by the District Court.

3. On 9 November 2011, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Appeal No.44 of 2011 challenging the sale permission dated 13 December 2010 along with an application for condonation of delay. The petitioner filed his reply to the delay condonation application on 6 March 2012. On the same day, the petitioner also raised a specific objection regarding the maintainability of the appeal.

4. On 1 August 2014, respondent No.5 proceeded to hear the purported appeal on merits without first condoning the delay. Respondent No.5 cancelled the sale permission dated 13 December 2010 solely on the ground that respondent No.4 was not informed about the agreement dated 8 May 1995 and that Satish Tanksale was neither informed nor heard before grant of permission. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. This Court, by order dated 26 February 2018, issued Rule in the present petition.

6. Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the Rehabilitation Act does not provide for any appeal against an order granting permission for transfer. He contended that the appellate order is therefore without jurisdiction. He submitted that an order granting permission does not amount to a decision or order under Section 247 of the MAHARASHTRA LAND REVENUE CODE , as it does not adjudicate any right, title, or interest. According to him, the expression order must be read in the context of the preceding word decision, which contemplates adjudication of rights. He further submitted that the reasons recorded in the impugned order relate to alleged civil disputes, which respondent No.5 was not competent to examine. He submitted that under Section 12 (2) of the Rehabilitation Act, permission can be refused only if the proposed transfer defeats the object or provisions of the Act. H