2012 (1) TMI 386 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the order dated 19/12/1975 was obtained by practicing fraud.
2. Whether the order dated 19/12/1975 can be held to be a nullity.

Summary:

Issue 1: Fraud Allegation

The petitioner, Tukaram Chopade, filed an application u/s 32(O) r/w 32G of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948, which was granted on 19/12/1975 without issuing any notice. Late Andappa, the original landowner, later claimed the order was obtained by fraud, stating that the petitioner misled him and the Tahasildar. The court noted that fraud is a question of fact that must be pleaded and determined in a civil suit, not by tenancy authorities. The court held that authorities under the Act could not determine fraud in proceedings arising from an application u/s 32R. The remedy for heirs of Late Andappa to challenge the order on the ground of fraud remains open either by appeal, application for setting aside the order, or a civil suit.

Issue 2: Nullity of the Order

The court examined whether the order dated 19/12/1975 was a nullity due to inherent lack of jurisdiction. The court referenced several judgments, including Kiran Singh v/s. Chaman Paswan and Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka v/s. Jasjit Singh, which established that orders passed without jurisdiction are nullities. However, the court concluded that the Mamlatdar & ALT, South Solapur, had jurisdiction under Section 70(b) of the Act to decide the tenancy status, and thus, the order did not suffer from inherent lack of jurisdiction. The question of whether the order was a nullity due to fraud remains open for appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion:

The court partly allowed the petition, setting aside the MRT's order to remand the matter for fresh proceedings u/s 32-O. It upheld the original order dated 19/12/1975, stating it did not suffer from lack of jurisdiction. The issue of fraud remains open for adjudication in appropriate proceedings.