AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.
1 The present appeal arises against the order dated 04.08.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Special Civil Application (for the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their status in Special Civil Application), whereby the matter is remanded to the Mamlatar for fresh consideration.
The relevant facts are that the proceedings before the Mamlatdar & ALT under the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act ("the Act" for short) were initiated in respect of land bearing Block No. 987 of village Tankal, Taluka Chikhli. It appears that there were various litigations, viz., of preferring appeal and thereafter, ultimately the matters were remanded to the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, the Mamlatdar on 31.07.2000, passed the order whereby the claim of the original Petitioner before the Mamlatdar for tenancy rights was not accepted and the application was rejected. The original Petitioner carried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector as well as before the Revenue Tribunal and failed. The original Petitioner preferred petition before this Court challenging the orders of the lower authorities. The learned Single Judge found that the Mamlatdar did not pass any order below application for production of 44 documents dated 25.10.1999 and therefore, there was material irregularity in exercising the power and the matter has been remanded to the Mamlatdar. Under these circumstances, the present appeal before us.
We have heard Mr. P.V. Hathi, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. Sanjanwala, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1-original Petitioner.
The perusal of the order passed by the Mamlatdar shows that at para 6, Mamlatdar recorded that there is objection raised for consideration of the documents produced with the application dated 25.10.1999 and inspite of the same, in the interest of justice, all the documents are taken into consideration. The pertinent aspect is that even in the order of the Tribunal, there is reference to the said part at para 9 and the Tribunal has observed that inspite of the objection raised by the owner of the land-the Appellant herein, the Mamlatdar & ALT has taken into consideration the documents and so is by the Deputy Collector and the Tribunal after considering the said material has concurred with the view taken by the Mamlatdar & ALT and the Deputy Collector in Appeal. Therefore, the position as emerging from the order of the Mamlatdar as well as of the Deputy Collector and the Revenue Tribunal is that the documents which were submitted vide application dated 25.10.1999 have been taken into consideration for the purpose of deciding the matter of tenancy case.
If the order of the learned Single Judge is considered in light of the aforesaid, it appears that the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter on the ground that the Mamlatdar ought to have passed the order below the said application submitted on 25.10.1999 for production of important documents. The Mamlatdar having not passed the said order, the learned Single Judge has found that great injustice and prejudice is caused to the original Petitioner.
When the documents were already considered by the Mamlatdar & ALT as stated in the order and were also considered by the Deputy Collector as well as by the Tribunal, it could not be said that any prejudice or injustice is caused to the original Petitioner on account of not passing a formal order by the Mamlatdar for allowing the production or otherwise. We may record that if any document is produced and the production is resisted by the other side, the Court can decide the question of consideration of the documents at the time of final hearing or conclusion of the matter. Same has happened in the present case. Further, when the documents were already considered, it could not be said that any injustice is caused or any prejudice is caused to the original Petitioner merely because the formal order was not passed by the Mamlatdar for allowing the production. Therefore, we are of the view that when the documents were already considered, it cannot be said that any prejudice was caused or any injustice was caused to the original Petitioner. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Single Judge on the said aspect is not correct.
As the learned Single Judge has not examined the merits of the matter on other aspects as to whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal could stand even if the documents are considered or not, it would be just and proper to remand the matter to the learned Single Judge for consideration of the other aspects of Special Civil Application.
Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside with the observation that the Special Civil Application No. 3560/02 shall be considered by the learned Single Judge afresh on merits.
The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. It would be open to the either side to move for early hearing of the Special Civil Application.