Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue
Jurisdiction Act, 1876 reads thus:-
11. Except as otherwise expressly
provided in the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, no Civil Court
shall entertain any suit against the
Government, on account of any act or
omission of any Revenue Officer unless
the plaintiff first proves that
previously to bringing his suit, he has
presented all such appeals allowed by
the law for the time being in force as,
within the period of limitation allowed
for bringing such suit, it was possible
to present.
Upon reading of the above provisions, it is
amply clear that if the act or omission on the part
of a Revenue Officer of the Govt., is alleged in a
civil suit, unless the remedies provided by the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are exhausted,
jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. In the
present case, it was the case of the respondent plaintiff
throughout that initially he got lease
for a temporary period and he applied for renewal
thereof or continuation, and not only that he also
applied for grant of permanent lease. It is an
admitted position that the period of lease had
already expired, and the applications made by the
plaintiff before the Collector of the district for
renewal of lease or for grant of permanent lease
remained pending, and were not decided. Thus, the
respondent-plaintiff alleged omission on the part
of Revenue Officer in not deciding his applications
for renewal of lease or grant of leases. Such
matter squarely falls within the ambit of Section
11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and,
therefore, the Civil Court could not have
entertained the suits. Hence the first Substantial
Question of Law will have to be answered in
affirmative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Second Appeal No. 344 of 1997
State of Maharashtra Vs Bhikulal Mahadeo Agrawal,
CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
Date : 13th March, 2014.
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR 282
Print Page
Jurisdiction Act, 1876 reads thus:-
11. Except as otherwise expressly
provided in the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, no Civil Court
shall entertain any suit against the
Government, on account of any act or
omission of any Revenue Officer unless
the plaintiff first proves that
previously to bringing his suit, he has
presented all such appeals allowed by
the law for the time being in force as,
within the period of limitation allowed
for bringing such suit, it was possible
to present.
Upon reading of the above provisions, it is
amply clear that if the act or omission on the part
of a Revenue Officer of the Govt., is alleged in a
civil suit, unless the remedies provided by the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are exhausted,
jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. In the
present case, it was the case of the respondent plaintiff
throughout that initially he got lease
for a temporary period and he applied for renewal
thereof or continuation, and not only that he also
applied for grant of permanent lease. It is an
admitted position that the period of lease had
already expired, and the applications made by the
plaintiff before the Collector of the district for
renewal of lease or for grant of permanent lease
remained pending, and were not decided. Thus, the
respondent-plaintiff alleged omission on the part
of Revenue Officer in not deciding his applications
for renewal of lease or grant of leases. Such
matter squarely falls within the ambit of Section
11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act and,
therefore, the Civil Court could not have
entertained the suits. Hence the first Substantial
Question of Law will have to be answered in
affirmative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Second Appeal No. 344 of 1997
State of Maharashtra Vs Bhikulal Mahadeo Agrawal,
CORAM : A.B.CHAUDHARI, J.
Date : 13th March, 2014.
Citation;2015(2) ALLMR 282
