The applicant is the heir of original respondent no.2. He seeks review of an order dated 11.12.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No.4546/2001.
Though there is no formal prayer for condonation of delay of about 300 days caused in filing the review application, in view of the averments made in the additional affidavit filed by the applicant and submission made before me by the counsel for the applicant, such delay is ignored. I have in larger interest of justice examined the review application on merits.
Review Application arises in the following factual background. Present applicant was original respondent no.2 in the said Special Civil Application No.4546/2001. On 1.4.2003, it was conveyed by the counsel for the original petitioners that respondent no.2 has expired and the petitioner would like to bring his heirs on record. The petition was therefore, adjourned to 10.4.2003. On 10.4.2003, however, respondent no.2 was deleted at the request of the petitioner.
Subsequently, the petition came up for final hearing before me. By order dated 11.12.2008, I allowed the petition and set aside a portion of the order of the Collector dated 29.3.2001 and restored entry no.2768 dated 1.12.94 pertaining to suit lands. The grievance of the applicant is that the father of the applicant who was the original owner of the suit land was stated to have gifted the same to original respondent no.5 who in turn later on sold it to the petitioners. Entry no.2768 dated 1.12.94 pertains to so-called gift of the land. A further entry no.2933 dated 4.10.98 was made on account of sale of the land. The Collector had initiated proceedings for cancellation of such entries and initiated proceedings under section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act on the premise that purchasers were not agriculturists.
The applicant seeks review of the said order on the ground that he did not have sufficient opportunity to defend his case. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was a necessary party. His father having expired he ought to have been brought on record as heir of deceased respondent no.2. He submitted that there was no legal gift and the entry no.2768 was correctly deleted by the Collector.
However, in the order dated 11.12.2008 following observations were made :
"6. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties, I find that in so far as entry No.2768 dated 1.12.94 is concerned, counsel for the petitioners is justified in pointing out that the Collector exercised sou motu powers six years after the entry was certified and such exercise of power was thus grossly belated. Even otherwise, the family members never challenged the entry and the petitioners on the strength of the said reflection of the revenue records purchased the land nearly four years after certification of the entry. For these reasons, I find that the Collector's order pertaining to entry No.2768 cannot be upheld."
From the above, it clearly emerges that for nearly six years after entry no.2768 dated 1.12.94 was made, no steps were taken by the original opponent. Collector apparently suo motu initiated proceedings presumably on the premise that such agricultural land was later on sold to a non-agriculturist. Be that as it may, fact remains that the predecessor in title of the present applicant never questioned the gift. Entry was made in the Revenue record recording such gift. The donor never questioned the gift or the corresponding entry. It was the Collector who initiated suo motu proceedings long after the entry was made. In between the land was already sold once. Though counsel for the applicant submitted that the Collector instituted the proceedings upon an application made by the father of the present applicant, no such application is on record. No such averment is also made in the Review Application. Under the circumstances, the applicant was not a necessary party when the main petition was disposed of. No case for review is made out. Application is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (raghu) Top