This Court has carefully gone through the provisions
of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code like sections 50 to 53. The
provision of section 50 (5) shows that order made by Collector
can be challenged by filing appeal before the appellate authority.
Admittedly, this recourse was not used. The provision of section
50 (6) shows that only when the decision given under these
provisions becomes final, the suit can be filed to establish the
rights in Civil Court and that too, within six months from the date
when the decision of the revenue authority becomes final. It can
be said that in the present matters, there is no right as such to
the plaintiffs to continue the possession, but by making some
contentions, they have remained on the space due to the orders
made by the Courts below. The Trial Court has rightly held that
the provision of section 50 is applicable in such cases. The
record is produced to show that the Collector has delegated the
powers to Tahsildar, both in respect of agricultural lands and non
agricultural lands. Thus, there is no illegality in the notices given
against the plaintiffs and there are further aforesaid
circumstances. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court
has no hesitation to observe that the Courts below did not take
proper care, they did not take even the security from the
plaintiffs for getting order like statusquo and due to that the
Government could not take the steps like widening of the road in
respect of that portion.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 255 OF 2016
RAJENDRA POPAT WAGHMARE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DISTRICT
COLLECTOR
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 31st March, 2016.
Citation: 2016 (4) MHLJ 475
