Back
2009 Supreme(Raj) 1047
[Citation : RLW 2009(2) RJ 1372 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
S.K. Shivgonda Patil (Shri) Vs. Shri B.T. Shevale (Lodha, J.)
HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
HON'BLE R.M. LODHA, J.
Santoshkumar Shivgonda Patil (Shri) & Ors.
Versus
Shri Balasaheb Tukaram Shevale & Ors.
Civil Appeal Nos. 6017 & 6018 of 2009, decided on 02.09.2009
Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar, Anil K. Jha, for Appellants;
Shivaji M. Jadhav, for Respondents
Headnote:Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Sec. 257 — Limitation period for calling and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers — Exercise of Revisional power after 17 years — u/S. 257 no limitation period is prescribed — Held — Exercise of powers after lapse of 17 years is an abuse of process — Where period of limitation is not prescribed for exercising revisional powers, reasonable period would be three years.
(Paras 16 & 17)
egkjk"Vª Hkw-jktLo lafgrk] 1966] /kkjk 257 & v/khuLFk vf/kdkfj;ksa dk vfHkys[k ,oa dk;Zokgh eaxokus vkSj mudk ijh{k.k djus gsrq ifjlhek vof/k& 17 o"kZ ipkr~ iqujh{k.kh; kfDr dk iz;ksx djuk & /kkjk 257 ds rgr dksbZ ifjlhek vof/k fu/kkZfjr ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & 17 o"kZ O;rhr gksus ds ipkr~ kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djuk izfØ;k dk nq:i;ksx gS & ,sls ekeys tgka iqujh{k.kh; kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djus gsrq ifjlhek vof/k fu/kkZfjr ugha gS ogka rdZlaxr vof/k rhu o"kZ gksxhA ¼in la[;k 16 o 17½
vihy Lohdkj dhA
2. Leave granted in both matters.
3. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave is whether power of revision in Section 257 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 can be exercised at any time although no time has been prescribed for exercise of such power.
4. Takawade Gat No. 1157 (Old Survey No. 201/1) admeasuring 6H65R originally belonged to one N.R. Deshpande. The land was an inam land which was resumed on August 1, 1955. On the date of resumption, there were four tenants holding 1/4th share each. Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, one of such tenants, thus, held land admeasuring 1H 66R. The original landlord, N.R. Deshpande, was required to pay occupancy price before July 31, 1965 which he did only to the extent of 3/4th in respect of lands possessed by three tenants other than Tukaram Sakharam Shevale. The 3/4th portion was, thus, regranted and later on sold to the tenants occupying such portion. As regards 1/4th portion occupied by Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, it appears that no occupancy price was paid and this portion was resumed to the State. Tukaram is, however, said to have continued to remain in possession of 1/4th portion of the land till 1974-75.
5. The Tahsildar, Shirol, on March 30, 1976, passed an order hereby 3/4th of portion of Land earlier in occupation of Tukaram was granted in favour of Shivgonda Satgonda Patil on the basis of his occupation as cultivator and 1/4th remained in favour of Tukaram Sakharam Shevale.
6. Tukaram Sakharam Shevale, until his death in 1990, did not challenge the Tahsildar's Order dated March 30, 1976 in any proceeding. It was only after the death of Tukaram that his legal heirs, namely, Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, made an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji in 1993 seeking revision of the order of Tahsildar, Shirol passed on March 30, 1976. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji invoked his revisional power under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and after hearing the parties and getting the report from the Tahsildar, Shirol vide his order dated August 16, 1994 allowed the revision application and set aside the order dated March 30, 1976 giving 3/16th share in R.S. No. 210/1 to Shivgonda Satgonda Patil. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji declared that 1/4th share in R.S. No. 210/1 admeasuring 1H 66R shall be deemed to have been granted to Tukaram Shevale and pik-pahani entries made in favour of Shivgonda Satgonda Patil shall be treated as unauthorized and illegal.
7. Upset by the order dated 16.8.1994, the present appellants preferred appeal before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur who agreed with the view of Sub-Divisional Officer, Ichalkaranji and rejected the appeal on 16.9.1995.
8. The present appellants carried the matter before Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune but without any success.
9. The present appellants then filed writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Appellate side). The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on June 20, 1996.
10. The appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court which also came to be rejected on September 1, 2004.
11. Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code empowers State Government and certain Revenue and Survey Officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of Subordinate Officers. Thus, a power of revision is conferred on the State Government and certain Revenue and Survey Officers under Section 257.
12. Section 257 reads thus :
“Section 257 - Power of State Government and of certain Revenue and Survey Officers to call for and examine records and proceedings of subordinate officers
(1) The State, Government and any Revenue or Survey Officer, not inferior in rank to an Assistant or Deputy Collector, or a Superintendent of Land Records, in their respective departments, may call for and exa
