WP/7759/2013

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 7759 OF 2013

CHOTU FATRU PINJARI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Pingale Durgesh M

AGP for Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Dighe V.H.

Advocate for Respondent 4 : Shri Wani S.P.

...

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

Dated: April 02, 2014

...

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

2.

The controversy before this Court has boiled down to

a specific objection raised by the petitioner while

opposing RTS Appeal No.24 of 2012 before the Additional

Collector, Nandurbar.

Respondent No.4 herein had

preferred the said appeal.

3.

The petitioner while submitting his written say, had

raised a specific objection in clause (2) stating that in

light of the facts of the case and the law under which

the original proceedings are pending, the RTS Appeal was

not maintainable under Sections 247 and 257 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code ("MLRC").

WP/7759/2013

2

4.

The limited grievance of the petitioner is that

having raised this objection, specifically in his written

say, dated 18.9.2012, a prayer was made in clause (5)

that the said appeal should be dismissed "for want of

jurisdiction." The petitioner had also claimed that

other issues on merits need not be gone into as the

appeal was untenable in law.

5.

By the impugned order dated 30.7.2013, the concerned

authority has completely disregarded the objection of the

petitioner in Clause (2) and his prayer in Clause (5) of

his written say.

6.

Shri Wani, learned Advocate for respondent No.4

submits that the said authority had jurisdiction since

the earlier proceedings were also under the MLRC along

with other laws as well. However, the impugned order

cannot be faulted since the concerned authority has not

decided the matter on its merits and has simply remanded

the proceedings to the Sub Divisional Officer, Shahada

for a fresh consideration. He, therefore, states that

merely because the concerned authority has not decided

the objection of the petitioner, does not mean that the

impugned order is unsustainable.

WP/7759/2013

3

7.

After having heard the submissions of the learned

Advocates and after having perused the appeal papers

filed by the respondent and the written say of the

petitioner, it is evident that the petitioner has raised

a specific objection as regards the jurisdiction of the

said authority to decide the appeal. It was specifically

prayed that without delving upon the merits of the

matter, the appeal be rejected since it was not tenable

in law.

8.

It is undisputed that the concerned authority in the

impugned order has turned a blind eye to these objections

raised by the petitioner. These objections pertain to

the jurisdictional aspect of the matter. The learned

authority was expected to deal with it and arrive at a

conclusion, as to whether it had jurisdiction or not.

Bye-passing the objections raised by the petitioner and

passing the order even of the nature of remand, cannot be

countenanced.

9.

In the result, the petition is partly allowed and

the impugned order dated 30.7.2013 is quashed and set

aside only for the reason that the concerned authority

has not dealt with the objections raised by the

petitioner in clauses (2) and (5) of its written say.

WP/7759/2013

4

10.

RTS Appeal No.24 of 2012 is therefore, relegated

back to the Additional Collector, Nandurbar for a fresh

decision. It is expected that the said authority shall

deal with the objection of the petitioner and conclude,

whether it has a jurisdiction or not?

11.

There shall be no order as to costs.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

...

akl