Advocates:
['SHINDE ABASAHEB D', 'R NOS TO SERVED', '', 'GAWARE NITEEN V', 'R/ DEAD', 'R/ SERVED']

(1)

W.P. No.6219.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 6219 OF 2013

Kalyanrao S/o Yashwantrao Shinde,

Age:- 57 years, Occu. : Agril.,

R/o. Ranjangaon Mashid,

Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar.

….PETITIONER

VERSUS

1.

Trimbak S/o Jaisingh Pawar,

Age:- 69 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

2.

Jaiwant S/o Jaisingh Pawar,

Age:- 64 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

3.

Saheb S/o Jaisingh Pawar,

Age:- 61 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

4.

Baban S/o Jaisingh Pawar,

Age:- 59 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

5.

Chagan S/o Jaisingh Pawar,

Age:- 55 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 R/o

Bhoyare Gangarde,

Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar.

6.

Ulhasabai Chandrarao Shitole,

Age:- 66 Years, Occu. : Agril.,

R/o. Kurkum, Tq. Daund,

District Pune.

7.

Sindhu Chandrarao Shitole,

(Deceased) through the

Respondent No. 6.

(2)

W.P. No.6219.13

8.

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

(Parner-Karjat), Ahmednagar

Collector Office premises,

Ahmednagar.

…..RESPONDENTS

Mr V. D. Hon, Advocate holding for

Mr A. D. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioner;

Mr N. V. Gaware, Advocate for Respondent No. 1;

Mr D. V. Tele, A. G. P. for Respondent No. 8.

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

(Date of reserving the

judgment : 6^th August, 2014

Date of pronouncing the

judgment : 13th October, 2014)

JUDGMENT

Heard Shri V.D. Hon, learned Counsel holding for Shri Shinde on

behalf of the petitioner; Mr N.V. Gaware, learned Counsel for respondents

no.1 to 6 and Shri D.V. Tele, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.8.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the

consent of parties.

3.

The subject-matter of the present petition is the land old survey

no.95 (new Gat No.260), area 12 Hectares, 27 R, situated at Mouje

Bhoyare Gangarda, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar.

(3)

W.P. No.6219.13

4.

The petitioner herein claims to be owner of the above referred

property of which respondent Jaisingh was original tenant, whose tenancy

was protected under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “Tenancy Act”, for

the sake of brevity).

5.

The issues sought to be canvassed before the subordinate

authorities are in relation to the purchase price of the suit property, the

powers of the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer to pass an order to

that effect, the power to condone delay by the Sub-Divisional Officer and

that of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.

6.

From the record of the present proceedings, it appears that the

petitioner herein had an occasion to prefer Writ Petition No.11084 of 2010

questioning the order passed by the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer on

26^th November, 2009 on Application No.15 of 2008 preferred for

condonation of delay and the judgment dated 2^nd November, 2010,

delivered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Case No.9-B-210-AN.

7.

This Court, by judgment dated 22^nd March, 2011, has allowed the

said writ petition on the ground that the Sub-Divisional Officer, while

ordering condonation of delay, has not dealt with the issue as regards

non-communication of the order dated 30^th September, 1993 to the

(4)

W.P. No.6219.13

petitioner, which was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and similarly,

the non-consideration of the defence set-up by the respondents in the

said proceedings.

8.

From the record, it appears that the original tenant, namely,

Jaisingh Raghunath Pawar was in possession of the property referred to

above as on 1^st April, 1957, however, since the petitioner was minor at that

t