Shevantabai Maruti Kalhatkar Vs. Ramu Rakhamaji Kalhatkar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1268 of 1995
( From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.94 of the Bombay High Court in S.A. No. 221 of 1983 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.94 of the Bombay High Court in S.A. No. 221 of 1983 )
Petitioner: Shevantabai Maruti Kalhatkar
Respondent: Ramu Rakhamaji Kalhatkar & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1268 of 1995
( From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.94 of the Bombay High Court in S.A. No. 221 of 1983 )
( From the Judgment and Order dated 14.7.94 of the Bombay High Court in S.A. No. 221 of 1983 )
Judges: G.T. NANAVATI & S.P. KURDUKAR , JJ .
Date of Judgment: Oct 15, 1998
Appearances:
Mr. A.M. Khanwilkar , Advocate for the appellant .
Mr. Arun K. Sinha , Advocate (N.P.) for the Respondents .
Head Note:
LAND AND TENANCY
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947
Sections 36A , 36B – Bar of Jurisdiction – Sale objected to being fragmentation – Trial Court obtaining a report from competent authority under Section 36-B – Authority declaring sale to be valid – Held that the first appellate Court , being a Civil Court , could not go behind the orders passed by competent authority as Section 36-A clearly bars jurisdiction of Civil Court . ( Para 4 )
JUDGEMENT:
NANAVATI , J. :
1 . This appeal filed by the original owner of the suit land is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No. 221/83 .
2 . Pursuant to an agreement of sale , the appellant sold the suit land to the respondents under a registered sale deed . On the basis of the sale in their favour the respondents , filed a suit for possession in the Court of the Civil Judge , Junior Division , Khed . The Trial Court decreed the suit in spite of the objection raised by the plaintiff that the sale transaction was void as the land was a fragment and sale of such land is prohibited under The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1947 .
3 . Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of Extra Assistant Judge . Pune . The learned Assistant Judge allowed the appeal as he was of the opinion that the sale transaction was void and therefore the respondents did not derive any title to the land there under . The respondents approached the High Court and their has been allowed .
4 . The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land being a fragment , the sale in favour of the respondent was void and therefore , it was rightly declared by the first Appellate Court to be so . We find no substance in this contention . The Competent Authority , on a reference being made to it by the Trial Court under section 36B of the Act , had held that the sale is valid . The High Court was therefore right in holding that it was not open to the First Appellate Court , being a Civil Court , to go behind the order passed by the compet-ent authority . Section 36 A of the Act clearly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle , decide or deal with any question which by or under the Act required to be settled , decided or dealt with by the state Government or any officer or authority .
5 . The appeal is , therefore , dismissed . No order as to costs .
1 . This appeal filed by the original owner of the suit land is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No. 221/83 .
2 . Pursuant to an agreement of sale , the appellant sold the suit land to the respondents under a registered sale deed . On the basis of the sale in their favour the respondents , filed a suit for possession in the Court of the Civil Judge , Junior Division , Khed . The Trial Court decreed the suit in spite of the objection raised by the plaintiff that the sale transaction was void as the land was a fragment and sale of such land is prohibited under The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act. 1947 .
3 . Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the appellant preferred an appeal to the Court of Extra Assistant Judge . Pune . The learned Assistant Judge allowed the appeal as he was of the opinion that the sale transaction was void and therefore the respondents did not derive any title to the land there under . The respondents approached the High Court and their has been allowed .
4 . The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the land being a fragment , the sale in favour of the respondent was void and therefore , it was rightly declared by the first Appellate Court to be so . We find no substance in this contention . The Competent Authority , on a reference being made to it by the Trial Court under section 36B of the Act , had held that the sale is valid . The High Court was therefore right in holding that it was not open to the First Appellate Court , being a Civil Court , to go behind the order passed by the compet-ent authority . Section 36 A of the Act clearly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle , decide or deal with any question which by or under the Act required to be settled , decided or dealt with by the state Government or any officer or authority .
5 . The appeal is , therefore , dismissed . No order as to costs .
