When the civil suit is maintainable even if the appeal is provided against the order of the revenue officer?

 A simple answer to the plea is that in the first place it is extremely doubtful whether an appeal would lie against the notice issued by the Talathi. The notice is illegal on the face of it for a number of reasons. But it is doubtful as to whether it is appealable. In the second place, even assuming that the appeal lay against the said notice, it is not incumbent upon the plaintiff to file the appeal at all. As will be presently pointed out the notice is illegal on the face of it and it is unconstitutional because it amounts to recovery of tax without the authority of law. Article 265 of the Constitution provides that no tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law. As has been held by the Court below and as will be pointed out by me presently the notice in question is devoid of any authority of law. An un-constitutional order passed by any officer of the Government need not be appealed against, because the appellate authority with special and limited jurisdiction will not have the authority to decide whether its own acts or the acts of its subordinate are ultra vires the statute or the Constitution. The Civil Court's jurisdiction in such cases to entertain a suit for declaration that the act is illegal and ultra vires the statute and/or the Constitution is always held to be quite competent.

Bombay High Court

State Of Maharashtra vs Nargis B. Mewawala (Mrs.) on 27 June, 1986

Print Page

Whether civil court can grant injunction to restrain revenue court?

 In view of the above-stated legal position, the trial Court has rightly held that the Revenue Court is not the court subordinate to the Civil Court, therefore, no injunction can be granted against Revenue Court under Section 41(b) of the Act of 1963. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

Second Appeal No. 730 of 1999

Decided On: 06.09.2018

 Prakash Narain Vs.  Sharda Prasad and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Citation: AIR 2019 (NOC) 264 CHH

Print Page

Whether judgment passed by civil court is binding on revenue authorities while carrying out mutation entries?

 In my view, the Law in relation to mutation entries, pursuant
to civil court proceedings, is no longer resintergra.
This Court, in the
matter of Shrikant R. Sankanwar and Ors. vs Krishna Balu
Naukudkar, 2003 (3) Bom.CR 45 has laid down the Law that when it
comes to carrying out mutation entries, the best piece of evidence
has to be considered in cases where there is no verdict of the Civil
Court. In cases where the Civil Court had an occasion to deal with

the
claims of the parties in relation to their right, title and interest
over immovable properties, it was held that the verdict of the Civil
Court would bind the revenue authorities and mutation entries,
which are meant for fiscal purposes, should be carried out in tune
with the verdict of the Civil Court. It was also concluded that the
verdict of the Civil Court would bind the revenue authorities in
matters of carrying out mutation entries and not viceversa.

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.792 OF 2019

Gangabai Ramrao Patil,  Vs   The State of Maharashtra,

( CORAM : Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)
DATE : 07/06/2019
Citation: 2019(6) MHLJ 896

Print Page

Whether revenue authorities can decide question of title during mutation proceeding?

In my view, the validity of the development agreement and the two power of attorneys as well as the conveyance deed which were all registered cannot be gone into by the revenue authority in the proceedings under section 149 read with section 150 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The revenue authority has no power to adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property in respect of which an application for reporting the rights under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 is made by the applicant.

33. This Court in an unreported judgment in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors., delivered on 24th April 2018 in Writ Petition No. 10914 of 2017 has held that the revenue authority cannot adjudicate upon the title in respect of the property for which an application for recording the names in the revenue record is made by one of the parties eligible to apply under section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The principles of law laid down by this Court in the case of Akhtar Hasan Rizvi vs. Harish R. Bhattad & Ors. (supra) would squarely apply to the facts of this Court. I am respectfully bound by the said judgment. The aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court and the judgment delivered by this Court would also squarely apply to the facts of this Court. In my view, the impugned orders passed by the learned Revenue Minister dated 8th March 2018 and the learned Additional Commissioner dated 3rd June 2017 thus deserve to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 5051 of 2018

Decided On: 15.06.2018

 Ramesh Shantilal Modi Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 173

Print Page

Whether legal necessity can be proved by statement of deceased recorded before tenancy court?

Exhibits 133 and 134 record of tenancy
proceeding which was filed by Laxmibai against husband
of Anjanibai shows that the proceeding was filed for
possession by Laxmibai on the ground that the husband of
Anjanibai was not giving crop share to her. These
documents include evidence of Laxmibai recorded before
the tenancy Court and there is both, the examination-inchief
and the cross-examination of Laxmibai. This record
is considered by the Courts below as Laxmibai is dead and
it is relevant matter under section 32 of the Evidence Act.
This record shows that maximum quantity of six mans
food-grains was given to Laxmibai by the husband of
Anjanibai in one year and in one year only three mans
food-grain was given. The record shows that Laxmibai had
tried to convince the husband of Anjanibai to give more
food-grains as crop share for her survival and that was
done through mediator also. But the husband of Anjanibai
had refused to give her crop share. In the cross
examination of Laxmibai it was suggested to her that

under agreement with husband of Anjanibai, land was
given for cultivation and she had no objection against the
husband of Anjanibai to cultivate the land if he was acting
as per the terms and conditions of lease. It was brought
on the record that Laxmibai had made attempts to give
the suit land to one Mohan for cultivation. Laxmibai had
stated that due to husband of Anjanibai, Mohan had
refused to cultivate the land. Thus, difficulties, which
Laxmibai had faced in cultivating the land and get it
cultivated through others were stated before the authority
by Laxmibai.
27) The aforesaid discussion shows that Laxmibai
had become helpless. The family of the plaintiff was not
taking care of her. She was not in a position to personally
cultivate the land. Further the land was not giving
sufficient income and for survival she was required to take
some steps. Considering the value of the land it was not
possible for her to raise money by mortgaging the land for
her survival. Further there would have been question of
repayment of loan. In view of these circumstances
Laxmibai sold the property to Tatyaba. It is specifically

mentioned in the sale deed that she wanted to repay the
loan and she wanted to use the remaining money, part of
the consideration, for family expenses, for maintenance.
This evidence was certainly sufficient to create probability
that there was legal necessity and there was no other
alternative before Laxmibai than to sell the property. The
effect of the aforesaid circumstances ought to have been
considered by the Courts below in view of the law laid
down in that regard. The aforesaid circumstances are not
separately and cumulatively considered by the Courts
below.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Second Appeal No.55 of 1989
 Kisan Ramchandra Kokane

V
 Anjani w/o Laxman Kapase,


 CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J.
 DATE : 20th JUNE 2016.
Citation: AIR 2017 (NOC) 64 Bom

Print Page

When court should not refer issue of agricultural tenancy to revenue officers?

Supreme Court in the case of Gurbax Singh Chanda Singh (supra) has held that if the provisions of the statute have not been complied with or the statutory tribunal has not acted in conformity with the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, the civil Courts have jurisdiction to examine those cases. In my view, since the alleged certificate issued under Section 32-M of the BTAL Act is without following the mandatory procedure under the provisions of the BTAL Act, the same being nullity and thus cannot bind the plaintiffs and thus no cognizance thereof can be taken by this Court.

65. In so far as the judgments in the cases of Rajaram Totaram Patel (supra), Tulsiram Adku Marape & Anr. (supra), Saraswatibai Trimbak Gaikwad (supra) and Smt.Savitra Bapu Shinde & Ors. (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant nos.1 to 7 are concerned, none of those judgments would assist the case of the defendant nos.1 to 7. The defendant nos.1 to 7 not having raised plea of alleged tenancy before the learned trial Judge, inspite of having rendered opportunities to file written statement twice, the defendant nos.1 to 7 cannot be allowed to raise a plea that the learned trial Judge ought to have referred the issue of  tenancy to the competent authority under the provisions of the BTAL Act. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant nos.1 to 7 are thus clearly distinguishable.

Bombay High Court

1. Shri Chindhu Fakira Satale And ... vs 1. Sau. Vithabai Kashinath Jadhav ... on 5 October, 2016

Bench: R.D. Dhanuka

Citation: 2017(1) ALLMR 121 Bom

Print Page

What is procedure for transfer and conversion of Occupancy Class II government land?

 The writ jurisdiction of this Court is invoked against the order
dated 24/02/2010 passed by the Respondent No.2 i.e. the Collector, Nashik by

which order the application filed by the predecessor of the Petitioner for grant
of permission to transfer the land and for its conversion from agricultural to
non­agricultural came to be allowed on the terms and conditions mentioned
therein.  The terms and conditions mentioned in the impugned order entail the
payment of unearned income to the State Government, as also the condition
that the land in question would continue to remain as Occupancy Class II land.
The Petitioner is principally aggrieved by the aforesaid condition mentioned in
the impugned order.
 In the instant case it would have to be borne in mind that the land in
question was allotted to the father of the original owner Namdeo Bankar on a
new and impartible tenure i.e. Class II.  The father of the said Nameo Bankar
had also executed a Kabuliyat wherein he had given an undertaking that the
allottee and his successor were bound by the terms and conditions of the
allotment and that if he commits a breach, he is liable to be evicted.  Hence the
instant case is not a case where the renewal of lease was sought but is the case
where   the   original   allottee   had   sought   permission   to   transfer   and   for
conversion of the agricultural land to non­agricultural.   In so far as the said
aspect is  concerned,  the  GR  dated  08/09/1983 regulates  the  transfer  and
conversion of agricultural lands belonging to Class II.  The said GR therefore
supplements the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code in so far as the transfer and
conversion of the land belonging to agricultural Class II is concerned. Hence

the instant case can be distinguished on facts from the case before the Division
Bench.
24 It would also have to be noted that the Petitioner and original
Owner by their conduct are now estopped from contending that the said GR
dated 08/09/1983 has no application.   It is required to be noted that the
Petitioner/original Owner has applied for conversion in the year 1989 as per
the then extant policy.  The original owner and the Petitioner had prosecuted
the proceedings before the authorities and this Court also as regards quantum
of the unearned income payable under the said GR for transfer and conversion
of  the land. The original  owner and the  Petitioner  have also shown  their
willingness to pay the unearned income and in fact have now deposited the
said unearned income with the Collector, Nashik.   It was also contended on
behalf of the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition No.5740 of 2007 that the GR
dated   08/09/1983   has   been   fully   implemented,   meaning   thereby   that   the
applicability of the said GR was accepted. The aforesaid facts therefore act as
an estoppel against the Petitioner and the original owner from contending that
the said GR dated 08/09/1983 would have no application.  The conduct of the
Petitioner amounts to approbation and reprobation i.e. on one hand apply
under the said GR for transfer and conversion whereas on the other hand
contend that it is not liable to pay unearned income as premium which is
contemplated by the said GR. It also cannot be lost sight of that the tenor of

the above Petition is only as regards the challenge to the condition appearing
in  the  impugned order dated 24/02/2010 passed by the  Collector, Nashik
wherein it is stated that the transferee would continue to occupy the land as a
Class II Occupant.   The Petitioner or the original Owner therefore never did
once question the applicability of the said GR dated 08/09/1983 and therefore
the submissions advanced on the basis of the judgment of the Division Bench
cannot be countenanced in the facts of the instant case.   The judgment in
Mohinder Singh Gill's  case (supra) would also have no application having
regard to the facts of the instant case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6747 OF 2016 
M/s. Niketan Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd.
v
State of Maharashtra  
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J.

Pronounced on : 10th January 2017

Print Page

Whether revenue authority can decide question of title during mutation proceeding?

 At the same time it is also to be noted that in case there is any application by the respondents for mutation of entries in their favour based on any valid and lawfully registered document or any decision pronounced by any court or judicial or quasi-judicial authority competent to pronounce such decision, certainly the Authorities acting under sections 149 and 150 of the said Code cannot ignore such application nor can refuse to carry out the mutation in accordance with the declaration of right in favour of the party by virtue of such decision of the Court or the competent Authority. In case of any conflict between such entries, the parties have to settle the dispute by taking resort to the regular remedy available under appropriate statutes but the revenue authorities acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the Code cannot assume jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties in relation to properties, while acting under those provisions for the purpose of mutations. Albeit, the revenue authorities can certainly decide in such cases, the issue of actual possession. However, such decision would be final, subject to the decision of the civil court in that regard.

Bombay High Court

Shrikant R. Sankanwar And Ors. vs Krishna Balu Naukudkar on 16 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (3) BomCR 45, 2003 (2) MhLj 276

Bench: R Khandeparkar

Print Page

When Jurisdiction of civil court is barred in suit against govt for any act or omission of Revenue officer?

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

Whether civil court has jurisdiction if revenue officer purports to do an act or pass an order which is invalid?

Property - Order of Tahsildar - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Sections 11, 13 and 14 of Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876; Section 247 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Maharashtra Land Revenue Rules - Whether suit framed by Plaintiff challenging the order of Tahsildar is barred under Section 11 of the Act of 1876 though the said order is appealable - Held, order of Tahsildar enhancing the non-agricultural charges is without jurisdiction - Section 11 will not be a bar in entertaining suit filed by Plaintiff before Civil Court - Reference petition disposed.Where the revenue officer purports to do an act or pass an order which is invalid, his action does not operate to raise a bar under Section 11 of the Act of 1876.

Bombay High Court

Gopinath Ganpatrao Pensalwar vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 6 October, 2006

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Lodha R.M., Bobde S.A. and Deshmukh S.B., JJ.

Citation: 2006(6)ALLMR504, 2006(6)BomCR6, 2007(1)MhLj819

Print Page

Whether revenue officer can decide legality of registered document?

 In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the petitioners had produced a registered sale deed dated 15-7-1998 while requesting for entry in their favour in mutation register. The Talathi based on the said document had allowed the application filed by the petitioners and had carried out necessary mutation in the register. The Sub-Divisional Officer while dealing with the appeal against the decision on mutation of entry, assuming illegally, the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Tenancy Act sought to deal with the controversy pertaining to the tenancy claim and right under the provisions of The Bombay Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1948, sought to set aside the said decision of Tahsildar allowing the application for mutation of entry, and thereby clearly transgressed the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities available under the provisions of the said Code and the said rules in relation to disputes pertaining to the mutation of entries. Additional Divisional Commissioner by confirming the said order of the said Divisional Officer reiterated the same illegality. Apparently both the authorities have acted illegally and beyond the powers vested in them in relation to the proceedings pertaining to mutation of entries under the said Code and the said rules, and therefore the orders passed by them cannot be sustained and are liable to be quashed and set aside. At the same time it is also to be noted that in case there is any application by the respondents for mutation of entries in their favour based on any valid and lawfully registered document or any decision pronounced by any court or judicial or quasi-judicial authority competent to pronounce such decision, certainly the Authorities acting under sections 149 and 150 of the said Code cannot ignore such application nor can refuse to carry out the mutation in accordance with the declaration of right in favour of the party by virtue of such decision of the Court or the competent Authority. In case of any conflict between such entries, the parties have to settle the dispute by taking resort to the regular remedy available under appropriate statutes but the revenue authorities acting under Sections 149 and 150 of the Code cannot assume jurisdiction to decide about the rights of the parties in relation to properties, while acting under those provisions for the purpose of mutations. Albeit, the revenue authorities can certainly decide in such cases, the issue of actual possession. However, such decision would be final, subject to the decision of the civil court in that regard.


Bombay High Court

Shrikant R. Sankanwar And Ors. vs Krishna Balu
 Naukudkar on 16 January, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 (3) BomCR 45, 
2003 (2) MhLj 276

R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.

Print Page

Distinction between execution sale by civil court and by revenue authorities

Sales held by Civil Courts made after enquiry and after the fulfilment of all the required formalities are in a very different position from sales by Revenue authorities. In the former case you have a Court of Justice at. work with its impartiality and its care. In the other you have fiscal authorities at work, and experience and common knowledge tell us that you certainly cannot expect and do not get the same qualities of impartiality and so forth in fiscal authorities as you are entitled to expect and ordinarily do obtain from the Civil Courts So to apply to sales by fiscal authorities precisely the same law which it is proper to apply to sales by Civil Courts would seem to me to be a very gross legal extravagance.

Bombay High Court

Mahadev Narayan Datar vs Sadashiv Keshav Limaye And ... on 9 February, 1920

Equivalent citations: (1920) 22 BOMLR 1082

Author: K Norman Macleod

Bench: N Macleod, Kt., Heaton

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

Print Page