It is quite significant to note that in an extremely refreshing, robust, rational and recent judgment titled Western Coalfields Limited v. Tahsildar Kamptee and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 3583 of 2021 that was reserved on June 30 and then finally pronounced on September 16, 2022, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has held that Tehsildar has the jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to correct status of land in the revenue record which may substantially impact the amount of compensation, even if acquisition proceedings are pending before the High Court. The Court further held that the correctness of exercise of powers and orders passed by the Tehsildar cannot be analysed based on pending proceedings about the quantum of compensation. It was also laid down that those proceedings are to determine just and fair compensation to the land owners whereas the proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are independent proceedings. The Single Judge Bench of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manish Pitale was dealing with a writ petition that was filed by the Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) challenging Tehsildar’s order to correct land revenue record on grounds of lack of jurisdiction.
At the very outset, this learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by a Single Judge Bench of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manish Pitale sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for rival parties.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench then envisages in para 2 that, “All these writ petitions raise a common point for consideration, which pertains to the true scope and interpretation of Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The said question is raised specifically in the backdrop of acquisition of lands in question and vesting of such lands in the acquiring body. The petitioner – Western Coalfields Limited (WCL), being the acquiring body, is contending that upon acquisition and vesting of the lands in question, the revenue authorities under Section 155 of the said Code cannot exercise jurisdiction to carry out any correction in the revenue record. The impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar have been directly challenged in these writ petitions, despite availability of alternative remedy of appeal, on the ground that the impugned orders have been passed without jurisdiction.”
While elaborating on the facts briefly, the Bench then states in para 3 that, “The brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petitions are that the petitioner – WCL acquired lands of the private respondents i.e. the land owners under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1957”). The lands belonging to the respondent – land owners were acquired for opening new coal mines and accordingly, Notifications were issued under the Act of 1957, in order to initiate and complete the process of acquisition of lands belonging to the respondent – land owners. The WCL claimed to have acquired the lands and taken possession thereof, at which stage the lands belonging to the respondent – land owners were recorded in the revenue record as non-irrigated lands. This entry in the revenue record did have a crucial bearing on the determination of quantum of compensation, because compensation for irrigated land can be much higher than compensation for non-irrigated land.”
As we see, the Bench discloses in para 4 that, “The respondent – land owners filed applications under Section 155 of the Code. Along with the applications, the respondent – land owners filed certain documents before the respondent – Tahsildar, claiming that the lands were wrongly recorded as non-irrigated lands and that the entry ought to be corrected to irrigated lands. On 11/07/2016, the respondent – Tahsildar passed an order, exercising power under Section 155 of the Code and directed that the lands of the respondent – land owners be recorded as irrigated lands.”
As it turned out, the Bench then points out in para 5 that, “Aggrieved by the said order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL filed number of Writ Petitions before this Court. On 15/10/2019, this Court in Writ Petition No. 2474 of 2017 (WCL Vs. Tahsildar, Kamthee and another), held that while passing the aforesaid order dated 11/07/2016, notice was not issued to the petitioner – WCL. This Court set aside the said order dated 11/07/2016, passed by the Tahsildar, only on the said ground of absence of notice to the petitioner – WCL and directed the Tahsildar to decide the proceedings afresh by granting opportunity to all the concerned parties.”
Furthermore, the Bench then mentions in para 6 that, “Pursuant to the matters being remanded to the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL was heard in the proceedings. By orders dated 09/01/2020, the respondent – Tahsildar held that no alteration was required in the aforesaid orders dated 11/07/2016, as a consequence of which the correction of the entry as irrigated lands was upheld.”
Needless to state, the Bench then lays bare in para 7 that, “Aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner – WCL has filed these Writ Petitions.”
It deserves mentioning that the Bench then stipulates in para 14 that, “But, the real question is, as to whether the Revenue Officer under the aforesaid Code would cease to have any jurisdiction in respect of the said lands post acquisition and vesting. In this context, Section 155 of the Code becomes relevant, which reads as under:
“155. Correction of clerical errors
The Collector may, at any time, correct or cause to be corrected any clerical errors and any errors which the parties interested admit to have been made in the record of rights or registers maintained under the Chapter or which a Revenue Officer may notice during the course of his inspection:
Provided that, when any error is noticed by a Revenue Officer during the course of his inspection, no such error shall be corrected unless notice has been given to the parties and objections, if any, have been disposed of finally in accordance with the procedure relating to disputed entries.””
Quite pragmatically, the Bench then propounds in para 15 that, “A bare reading of the above quoted provision would show that the Collector (in this case the respondent – Tahsildar upon being authorized by the Collector), could at any time correct a clerical error and any error either upon the interested parties admitting to such correction or which a Revenue Officer may notice during the course of inspection. The proviso requires the Revenue Officer to necessarily put the concerned parties to notice and objections, if any, are required to be disposed of finally in accordance with procedure relating to disputed entries. Thus, it becomes clear that there is no limitation to a Revenue Officer exercising power under the aforesaid provision.”
Simply put, the Bench then mentions in para 16 that, “Much emphasis was placed on behalf of the petitioner – WCL on the aspect that once the land had vested in it, no application could have been preferred by the respondent – land owners under Section 155 of the Code, for the reason that the petitioner – WCL was not admitting to any such correction and it could not be said, in the facts of the present case, that the Revenue Officer had noticed any error during the course of inspection for making correction.”
To be sure, the Bench then forthrightly expounds in para 17 that, “In order to better appreciate the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner – WCL, it would be necessary to take a close look at the documents available on record. A perusal of the two orders passed by the Tahsildar on 11/07/2016 and 09/01/2020, would show that the Tahsildar caused a spot inspection to be conducted concerning the subject lands of the respondent – land owners and after considering the documents on record, found that there was an error in recording the lands as non-irrigated lands. Thereupon, the Tahsildar found it fit to exercise power under Section 155 of the Code to make correction in the records to the effect that the subject lands were irrigated lands. Even if the action of the Tahsildar could be said to have been triggered by the applications filed by the respondent – land owners, it can certainly be said that when spot inspection was conducted through the Talathi and report was received by the Tahsildar as Revenue Officer, error was noticed and power was exercised under Section 155 of the Code for carrying out correction. In this context, a perusal of the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner – WCL before the Tahsildar would show that the substance of the objection was that once the land stood acquired and vested with the WCL, the Tahsildar could not exercise power to correct the revenue entry. It was indeed stated in this backdrop that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction under the aforesaid provision and that the respondent – land owners were seeking correction only to get extra benefits for the acquisition of their lands.”
It would be worthwhile to mention that the Bench then notes in para 18 that, “It is significant that minutes of a meeting conducted with the officials of the petitioner – WCL in the context of growing dissatisfaction of the land owners with the compensation, show that a direction was issued to the state authorities to give information to the petitioner – WCL regarding permanent sources of irrigation pertaining to the said lands. This document recording minutes of the meeting dated 27/12/2014, has not been denied by the petitioner – WCL.”
What’s more, the Bench then enunciates in para 19 that, “The aforesaid document becomes relevant in the context of a specific communication addressed by the Area Planning Officer of Nagpur Area of the petitioner – WCL, dated 07/10/2006, addressed to the respondent – Tahsildar, wherein it is stated that the land owners had refused to accept compensation while disputing the status of the land and a specific request was made, by the said officer of the petitioner WCL, to confirm the status of the lands given in the statement of the petitioner – WCL under Section 9(1) of the Act of 1957 on 14/05/2004. It was specifically asked from the Tahsildar, as to whether such statement was correct or not. This becomes extremely crucial for the reason that the said Notification pertained to acquisition of the lands of the respondent – land owners. The said document clearly discloses that the petitioner – WCL itself was in doubt about the lands of the respondent – land owners being recorded as non-irrigated lands. When such a clarification was sought by the petitioner – WCL itself from the respondent – Tahsildar about the exact status of the land of the respondent – land owners, it cannot lie in the mouth of the petitioner – WCL to claim that the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar correcting error in the record, were without jurisdiction. All that the proviso to Section 155 of the Code requires is that the concerned parties are put to notice and objections are considered before an order is passed for correcting the error in the revenue record.”
Moving on, the Bench then observes in para 20 that, “This Court is satisfied that after the matters were remanded on the ground that proper notice was not issued to the petitioner – WCL and thereafter, the Tahsildar considered the objections raised by the petitioner – WCL in detail, the impugned orders cannot be said to be without jurisdiction.”
As a corollary, the Bench then holds in para 21 that, “Having held that the impugned orders passed by the respondent – Tahsildar cannot be said to be without jurisdiction, the writ petitions could have been dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. But, having issued notices and considered the contentions of the rival parties on merits, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petitions ought not to be dismissed, only on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. Even otherwise, the rule of availability of alternative remedy is more a rule of prudence than a rule of law and a writ petition need not be dismissed on every occasion when it is found that an alternative remedy is available. Therefore, this Court is refraining from dismissing the writ petitions only on the said ground.”
In the fitness of things, the Bench then hastens to add in para 22 that, “Even otherwise, it is found that the Tahsildar has considered the objections of the petitioner – WCL in detail. The findings of the Tahsildar are based on spot inspection reports showing sources of irrigation in the lands in question, thereby warranting correction in the revenue record to show the lands as irrigated lands.”
Most significantly, what forms the cornerstone of this notable judgment is then laid down in para 25 stating that, “As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner – WCL that correction of the revenue record by the Tahsildar would affect the proceedings pending before this Court on the question of quantum of compensation, suffice it to say that the correctness or otherwise of exercise of power and orders passed by the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code, cannot be analyzed and decided on the basis of proceedings pending before this Court pertaining to quantum of compensation. The whole purpose of determining compensation in such cases is to determine as to what can be just and fair compensation payable to the land owners. The proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are clearly independent proceedings and if they aid in determining just and fair compensation to land owners, then it cannot be said that the proceedings could not have been initiated or the orders passed by the Tahsildar deserved to be set aside, merely because proceedings pertaining to the determination of quantum of compensation are pending before this Court. Thus, the aforesaid contention also deserves to be rejected.”
Resultantly, the Bench then directs in para 26 that, “In view of the above, it is found that there is no merit in the present writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.”
Finally, the Bench concludes by holding in para 27 that, “Rule is discharged.”
As a postscript, the Bench then later on holds that, “Upon pronouncement of judgment, Mr. C.S. Samudra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – Western Coalfields Limited prayed for continuation of the interim order that was operating during the pendency of the writ petitions. This Court has considered the prayer, but, considering the reasons recorded in the present judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer for continuation of stay cannot be granted. Hence, prayer is rejected.”
In conclusion, the Single Judge Bench of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Manish Pitale has made the entire picture of this judgment very clear by explaining each and every issue most meticulously. It is clear now from the aforesaid that the Tehsildar is fully empowered to correct the revenue records during pendency of acquisition proceedings! No denying it!
Sanjeev Sirohi
