1)since you are not party to 84C case you cannot file appeal against order passed by SDM
2) unable to find any case law wherein it has been held that third party can file appeal against order of SDM passed under section 84C of Bombay tenancy act
Right of revision in section 84C Bombay tenancy act cases
Section 84 C ( bombay tenancy and agricultural lands act ) Cases against one builder were initiated by sub divisional magistrate as he has purchased land using fake 7/12 and farmer’s certificate in Maharashtra. In those cases only sub divisional magistrate and builder were the parties and sub divisional magistrate passed orders in favor of the builder. PIL is filed by me in Bombay high court against this builder for purchasing the salt land and for purchasing land using fake 7 /12 and farmers certificate and after that the proceeding of 84 C is initiated by sub divisional magistrate. But I am not party in the section 84C cases. Now I have filed revision appeal against the orders passed by sub divisional magistrate with the Sub-Divisional Magistrate ( Prant ) but now builder ( accused ) has given affidavit that as I am not party to the 84C case so I do not have right to file the appeal and has requested SDPO to dispose the cases. Please provide case law and supporting section/ provision which shows that I can file the appeal. As on my follow up 84c cases are registered and also in public interests it’s important that land should be transferred to the government as per section 84C.
Asked 8 years ago in Property Law
Religion: Hindu
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
4 Answers
But if the builder and tehsildar ( Sub divisional magistrate ) are only two parties in this case then who has right to go in appeal if order is passed in favor of builder. As due to corrupt practice from Tehsildar order is passed in favor of builder. During enquiry from Tehsildar as per section 84b it is proved that builder has made and used fake 7/12 and farmer’s certificate and criminal case is also filed against him. And as per section 84C only transfer of land to government can be done, as investigation/ enquiry is already done in 84B. Kindly confirm with section/provision and case law in support ?
Asked 8 years ago
since you are not party to the proceedings you cannot file appeal against impugned order
2) if your appeal is dismissed then file writ petition in HC draw attention of court to fact that teshildar report reveals that builder has used fake 7/12 extract and farmer certificate
Being not a party to the case no doubt you cannot file an appeal.
If you were an interested party you could have impleaded yourself as a necessary party to the proceedings, whereas you did not bother until the case was disposed, but you are coming out with this appeal in which you have no locus standi
Ref: Bombay High Court
Ramchandra Balwantrao Dubal vs Dhondiram Tatoba Kadam And Anr. on 21 June, 1980;
Where in respect of the transfer or acquisition of any land made or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1955, the Mamlatdar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of this Act, the Mamlatdar shall issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided for in section 84B and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid.
But if the builder and tehsildar ( Sub divisional magistrate ) are only two parties in this case then who has right to go in appeal if order is passed in favor of builder. As due to corrupt practice from Tehsildar order is passed in favor of builder. During enquiry from Tehsildar as per section 84b it is proved that builder has made and used fake 7/12 and farmer’s certificate and criminal case is also filed against him. And as per section 84C only transfer of land to government can be done, as investigation/ enquiry is already done in 84B. Kindly confirm with section/provision and case law in support ?
This problem can be solved only by filing PIL in the high court since it is not your personal property.