Sale of Watan land without prior permission is illegal; regulatory powers and appeal procedures must be adhered to under the Act.

J U D G M E N T :

1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. This Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the judgment and order dated 15/12/2017, passed by Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad in R.O.R. Revision No.492/2012. By the impugned order, the learned Additional Commissioner did set aside the order passed by the Additional Collector, Jalna, declaring the sale deed dated 11.2.2008 to be illegal one. The Additional Collector had further directed the Tahsildar, Jafrabad to take the land into possession and grant it for cultivation for a year.

3. The Additional Commissioner has set aside the aforesaid order directing the sale deed (No.414), dated 11.2.2008, to be regularized on depositing ‘Nazrana’ amount.

4. Mr. Sambhaji S. Tope, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, the petitioner had moved application to the Collector for making enquiry into the sale transaction, being No.442, dated 8.2.1968. Learned counsel would submit that, the writ land had been granted to the father of the petitioner as an inferior Watan (Mahar). The writ land was the only source of living for the petitioner’s father. The petitioner found that, the writ land had changed hands. The revenue entries also came to be changed in accordance with the transaction that took place pertaining to the said land. The revenue authorities and the purchasers were hands-in-glove to deprive the petitioner’s father of his Watan land. During enquiry, it was found that the land was sold without obtaining prior permission, in view of Section 5 (3) of the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958 (for short, the Act of 1959). The sale transactions were, therefore, illegal and non est. The learned Additional Collector passed the well reasoned order. Under the provisions of the Act of 1959, an appeal is provided against the order passed by the Additional Collector. The forum of appeal is the State Government and not the Commissioner. The respondent No.1 did not prefer appeal against the order of the Additional Collector. He preferred revision application, wherein the impugned order has been passed. The scope of enquiry in revision application is very limited. The Additional Commissioner travelled beyond his revisional powers and passed an order for regularization of the disputed sale deed. In the revision application, the respondent No.1 had not urged for such a relief. The learned Advocate ultimately urged for allowing the Writ Petition, setting aside the impugned judgment and order.

5. Shri K.R. Doke, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would, on the other hand, submit that, the powers of the State Government to entertain appeal against the order passed by under Section 3 of the Act of 1959 have been delegated to the Additional Commissioner. Although the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner were titled as revision application, those were entertained and decided as an appeal. The Additional Commissioner has an authority to regularize sale deeds executed without obtaining prior permission of the Collector, under Section 5 (3) of the Act. The learned Advocate urged for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

The learned A.G.P. supported the impugned order.

6. The land Gat No.52 (Old Survey No.212) was the Watan land. It was allotted by the Government to seven persons including the father of the petitioner. The holdings of the petitioner’s father in the said land was little over one acre. It was a Mahar Watan land. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act o