SHRI JITENDRA CHIRANJILAL VYASversusSMT. SHARDABAI GANESH OZE (DECD) THROUGH LRS AND ORS

                                                                            WP-12946-2016.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 12946 OF 2016

                      Jitendra Chiranjilal Vyas                 … Petitioner
                                 V/s.
                      Shardabai Ganesh Oze
                      (Since Deceased Through LRs.) & Ors.      … Respondents

SHABNOOR              Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Ms. Bhakti Wast for the
AYUB
PATHAN                Petitioner.
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.09.01
                      Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni a/w Mr. Hrutik R. Chavan i/by
10:59:43 +0530
                      Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for the Respondent No. 1.
                      Mr. S. G. Karandikar i/by Mr. J. M. Joshi for the
                      Respondent No. 2 to 13.
                      Smt. Mamta Srivastva, AGP for the Respondent/State.


                                       CORAM              : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                       RESERVED ON        : AUGUST 24, 2026

                                       PRONOUNCED ON      : AUGUST 31, 2026

                      JUDGMENT:

                      1.    The Petitioner was the original Applicant in Review
                      Application     No.   TNC/REV/RAG/2/2014     filed    before      the
                      Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Petitioner has challenged the
                      order dated 18 June 2015 passed by the learned President of the
                      Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Review Application
                      No. 2 of 2014.

                      2.    The dispute in the present Writ Petition relates to
                      agricultural land bearing old Survey No. 16/4, admeasuring 12-29-



                                                      1
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


00 hectares, with Pot Kharaba of 1-71-00 hectares, now bearing
Gat No. 219/4, situated at Village Shirdhon, Taluka Panvel, District
Raigad. Shri Ganesh Sadashiv Oze was the original landlord and
owner of the suit land. After Shri Ganesh Sadashiv Oze died, his
widow Smt. Shardabai G. Oze became the owner of the suit land.
The Respondents claimed that they were tenants of the suit land.
Their predecessor, Late Shri Gorya Posha Vajekar, filed an
application under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in the year 1964 before the learned
A.L.T., Panvel No. 4. An inquiry was held in the said proceedings.
However, the learned Tahasildar and A.L.T., Panvel postponed the
proceedings under Section 32-G because the landlady was a
widow., the Tillers' Day was postponed. In the year 1971, the
predecessor of the Respondents, Shri Gorya Posha Vajekar, died.
Thereafter, the names of Balya Gorya Vajekar and others were
entered in the revenue record as his legal heirs by Mutation Entry
No. 1587. In the year 1984, Shri Balya Gorya Vajekar died.
Thereafter, the names of the present Respondents, including
Mahadeo Balu Vajekar and others, were entered in the record as
his legal heirs.

3.    On 17 August 2006, one Mahadu Nathu Vajekar filed an
application before the learned Tahasildar, Panvel, on behalf of the
other Respondents under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Before filing the said application
under Section 70(b), an application had been filed by one Vajekar
for entering the names of the present Respondents as tenants in
the revenue record. According to the Petitioner, those entries were



                                 2
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


wrongly made. On 17 August 2006, the learned A.L.T. and
Tahasildar, Panvel, issued notices to all concerned parties and fixed
the matter for hearing on 24 August 2006. While the said
application was pending before the Tahasildar, Panvel, notices
under Section 32-G were issued by the A.L.T. and Tahasildar,
Panvel.

4.      In   these circumstances, Respondent No. 1 filed            an
application or representation under Section 32-G of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before the Additional
Tahasildar and A.L.T., Panvel, seeking fixation of the purchase
price against the Petitioner. The said application was registered as
Tenancy/SR/109-A/2010 on 7 July 2010. Notices were thereafter
issued to the parties in the said tenancy proceedings. The
Petitioner states that, during the inquiry, Respondent No. 1 raised
an objection. According to the Petitioner, the inquiry was
completed without recording the statements of the parties before
the A.L.T. The Petitioner objected to the manner in which the
proceedings were conducted. According to the Petitioner, the
earlier dropped proceedings and Mutation Entry No. 770 were
never challenged by the Respondents. The Petitioner contends that
those proceedings and the mutation entry had become relevant
because the purchase price had not been fixed and the
Respondents had not been declared as tenants in respect of the suit
land.

5.      On 22 February 2011, while the application under Section
70(b) was pending, the learned A.L.T., Panvel, conducted the
inquiry under Section 32-G. According to the Petitioner, the A.L.T.



                                 3
                                                        WP-12946-2016.doc


did not properly consider the merits of the case or the mandatory
legal provisions and did not properly verify the records. The
purchase price was fixed in favour of the Respondents and an
order was passed. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22 February
2011 passed by the Additional Tahasildar, Respondent No. 1 filed
an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Panvel. The appeal
was numbered as Tenancy Appeal No. 41 of 2011. During the
pendency of the appeal before the learned S.D.O., Panvel, the
order dated 22 February 2011 passed by the learned Additional
Tahasildar was stayed. The learned S.D.O. heard the matter on
merits. The Petitioner filed detailed written submissions before the
learned S.D.O. on 4 July 2011. On 24 May 2012, the learned
S.D.O., Panvel, passed an order in Tenancy Appeal No. 41 of 2011
and dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

6.   According to the Petitioner, both the order dated 22 February
2011 passed by the A.L.T., Panvel, and the order dated 24 May
2012 passed by the learned S.D.O., Panvel, are legally invalid. The
main reason given by the Petitioner is that the original application
under Section 32-G had been filed before the A.L.T., Panvel, on 7
July 2010 through Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar, who claimed to act as
a Power of Attorney holder. The Respondents, namely, (1) Ragho
Ganpat Vajekar, (2) Padu Ganpat Vajekar, (3) Namdev Ganpat
Vajekar, (4) Smt. Changuna Sakharam Patil, (5) Smt. Nanubai
Ankush Bhoir and (6) Smt. Kalubai Anand Bhopi, had executed a
Power of Attorney dated 29 March 2007 in favour of (1) Shri
Ashish Chandrakant Shah, (2) Smt. Aparna Ashish Shah and (3)
Shri Vishwanath Bala Kotian. Thereafter, Shri Ashish Chandrakant



                                 4
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


Shah and Smt. Aparna Ashish Shah executed a Power of Attorney
in favour of Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar on 3 October 2006.
According to the Petitioner, the Power of Attorney dated 3 October
2006 was executed by Shri Ashish Chandrakant Shah in favour of
Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar before Shri Ashish Chandrakant Shah
himself had authority under the Power of Attorney dated 29 March
2007. The Petitioner contends that Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar had
no legal authority to appear or contest the proceedings before the
A.L.T., Panvel. The Petitioner states that Shri Mahadu Balu Vajekar
appeared before the learned S.D.O., Panvel, as a Power of Attorney
holder. According to the Petitioner, however, the said Power of
Attorney had been revoked and cancelled by the Respondents by
Advocate's notice dated 5 July 2010 and by a public notice dated 6
July 2010 published in a newspaper. The Petitioner contends that
Shri Mahadu Balu Vajekar had no authority to conduct the
proceedings before the learned S.D.O. On the basis of the Power of
Attorney executed by Smt. Shardabai Ganesh Oze, the Petitioner
filed Revision Application No. 243 of 2012 before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, challenging the judgment and order
dated 24 May 2012 passed by the learned S.D.O. in Tenancy
Appeal No. 41 of 2011. The said Revision Application challenged
the order by which the appeal filed by the Petitioner had been
dismissed. The said Revision Application was heard by the learned
M.R.T., Mumbai. After hearing the matter, the learned M.R.T.
admitted the Revision Application and granted stay to the order
dated 24 May 2012 passed by the learned S.D.O. in Tenancy
Appeal No. 41 of 2011.




                                 5
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


7.   The Petitioner states that he continued to pursue the said
Revision Application after it was admitted by the learned M.R.T.
and that the Revision Application was pending for hearing. In the
meantime, Smt. Shardabai Ganesh Oze issued a termination notice
seeking to terminate the Irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 29
October 2006 and sought cancellation of the registered Agreement
for Sale dated 29 May 2007. The Petitioner had filed Special Civil
Suit No. 329 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Panvel. In that suit, the Petitioner sought specific
performance of the said documents. The suit is pending before the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. In the said suit, the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel, passed an order
directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit
property.

8.   The Petitioner stated in the Review Application before the
M.R.T., Mumbai, that the M.R.T. was required to consider the order
passed by the Civil Court and recall or review the order dated 3
April 2014 passed in Revision Application No. 243 of 2012.
According to the Petitioner, the Revision Application had been filed
on the basis of a Power of Attorney which was in existence. The
alleged termination of that Power of Attorney was the subject
matter of the civil suit pending before the Civil Court. The Civil
Court had granted a status quo order in that suit. The Petitioner
stated that Respondent No. 1 had received consideration of Rs.80
lakhs under the Agreement for Sale and had thereafter given the
Power of Attorney in favour of the Petitioner. Thereafter, Smt.
Savita K. Chopra, daughter of Smt. Shardabai Ganesh Oze,



                                 6
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


appeared before the M.R.T., Mumbai. She filed an application
claiming that she had a Power of Attorney executed by Smt.
Shardabai Ganesh Oze. On 21 December 2012, the learned M.R.T.,
Mumbai, passed an order recording that there was a dispute as to
which of the two Power of Attorneys should be allowed to proceed
with the matter. The order recorded that, if the constituted
Attorneys did not resolve the dispute amicably by the next date,
necessary orders would be passed. The termination of the
Agreement for Sale dated 29 May 2007 and the Power of Attorney
dated 29 October 2006 was the subject matter of Special Civil Suit
No. 329 of 2012 filed by Shri Dilip Kesarimal Mehta and Shri
Naresh Kesarimal Mehta before the learned Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Panvel, against Smt. Shardabai Oze, her heirs and one
Wahid Hussain H. Shaikh.

9.   In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1
and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was
filed. The learned Civil Judge heard the application and passed an
order directing maintenance of status quo in respect of the suit
property. The suit is still pending before the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Panvel. After the alleged termination of the
Agreement for Sale and the Power of Attorney, Shri Naresh K.
Mehta and Shri Dilip K. Mehta filed an intervention application
before the learned M.R.T. They stated that they had a direct
interest in the property, had invested a substantial amount and had
paid the consideration to Smt. Shardabai G. Oze and Wahid
Hussain H. Shaikh. The learned M.R.T. considered the said
intervention application and directed that the application be



                                 7
                                                          WP-12946-2016.doc


treated as part of the Revision Application as if it had been filed in
the Revision Application. On 3 April 2014, the matter was listed
before the learned M.R.T., Mumbai. According to the Petitioner, no
notice was given to him and the pursis filed by Smt. Savita K.
Chopra was not served upon him.

10.     On that day, Smt. Savita K. Chopra filed an application
before the learned M.R.T., Mumbai, seeking permission to
withdraw the pending Revision Application No. 243/B/2012. The
Petitioner relies upon the roznama dated 5 February 2014.
According to the Petitioner, it records that the Applicant wanted to
appear in person instead of appearing through a Power of Attorney
holder. The Petitioner contends that the Applicant was required to
remain personally present before the learned M.R.T. According to
the Petitioner, despite this position, Smt. Savita K. Chopra did not
remain personally present before the learned M.R.T. and instead
filed   an   application   through     her    Advocate   by   giving     a
Vakalatnama. An application was filed on 20 February 2013.The
roznama dated 20 February 2013 records that she was absent and
had filed Vakalatnama through an Advocate. It records that the
matter was to proceed ex parte. The Petitioner states that he
obtained the application filed by Smt. Savita K. Chopra through
certified copies. On 3 April 2014, an order was passed on the said
application. The order records that, "as per the pursis filed today,
their    Revision   is     withdrawn     by     Revisional    Applicant
unconditionally and hence it is disposed of as withdrawn."
According to the Petitioner, Smt. Savita K. Chopra, while acting as
Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Shardabai G. Oze, suppressed the



                                  8
                                                        WP-12946-2016.doc


material fact that the dispute regarding the Agreement for Sale
and the Power of Attorney was pending before the Civil Court,
Senior Division, Panvel, in Special Civil Suit No. 329 of 2012. The
Petitioner states that the Civil Court had granted status quo in
respect of the suit land.

11.   The Petitioner contends that Smt. Savita K. Chopra, acting
through the Power of Attorney, attempted to make the pending
civil suit ineffective by withdrawing the Revision Application
before the M.R.T. It is alleged that Smt. Savita K. Chopra filed the
application on 3 April 2014 behind the back of the Petitioner and
with an intention to defeat the rights claimed by him. According to
the Petitioner, Smt. Savita K. Chopra suppressed the earlier orders
passed by the M.R.T. and the proceedings in which she had acted
as the Power of Attorney holder of Smt. Shardabai G. Oze. The
Petitioner contends that, by filing the pursis without notice to him,
an order dated 3 April 2014 was obtained which seriously affected
his claimed rights. The order dated 3 April 2014 is the order
challenged by the Petitioner in Review Application No. 2 of 2014
before the M.R.T. The Petitioner relies upon the noting made
below the application dated 3 April 2014. The said noting bears
the date "2-4-2014" and records that, "Smt.Savita Chopra as
identified by Shri Milind Parab, Advocate admits contents. Hence I
record this pursis." According to the Petitioner, there is an apparent
discrepancy because the application was filed on 3 April 2014,
whereas the noting records the date as 2 April 2014. In these
circumstances, the Petitioner filed Review Application No. 2 of
2014 before the M.R.T. He prayed that the Revision Application



                                  9
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


which had been withdrawn behind his back should be restored and
heard on merits and that the order dated 3 April 2014 should be
recalled and/or set aside. The said Review Application was heard
by the learned M.R.T. from time to time. On 18 June 2015, the
learned President of the M.R.T., Mumbai, disposed of the Review
Application filed by the Petitioner. The learned M.R.T. held that the
person who had allegedly executed the Power of Attorney in
favour of the Applicant was no longer alive. The Review
Application was disposed of on that basis. The learned M.R.T.
made it clear that the order was passed on a technical point and
not on the merits of the dispute. It was clarified that the
Applicant's right to pursue his civil rights before the appropriate
Civil Court was not precluded. The Petitioner is before this Court
challenging the order dated 18 June 2015 passed by the learned
President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Review
Application No. 2 of 2014.

12.   Mr. Savant, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, submitted
that the learned President of the M.R.T., Mumbai, ought to have
considered that a substantial amount of Rs.80 lakhs was paid by
cheque to Smt. Shardabai G. Oze. The said amount was duly
credited to her bank account. The amount was paid under the
Agreement for Sale dated 29 May 2007. There is no dispute that
Smt. Shardabai G. Oze had received this amount. It was submitted
that the Agreement for Sale and the Power of Attorney were
connected with the payment of consideration. The consideration
was accepted by Smt. Shardabai G. Oze. According to the
Petitioner, because of this transaction, an interest in the property



                                 10
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


was created in favour of Shri Dilip Kesarimal Mehta and Shri
Naresh Kesarimal Mehta.

13.   It was submitted that, once a substantial part of the
consideration had been paid to and accepted by Smt. Shardabai G.
Oze, the contract could not have been terminated in the manner
suggested by the Respondents. The Petitioner submitted that Smt.
Savita K. Chopra had obtained the order dated 3 April 2014 by
filing a pursis and withdrawing the Revision Application without
notice to the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, in view of the
Agreement for Sale, the Power of Attorney and the consideration
paid, the learned President of the M.R.T., Mumbai, ought to have
recalled the said order. It was lastly submitted that the Revision
Application filed by the Petitioner had been admitted by the
learned M.R.T. and stay had been granted against the order passed
by the lower Authority., according to the Petitioner, the learned
President of the M.R.T., Mumbai, ought to have recalled the order
dated 3 April 2014 and restored the Revision Application for
hearing and decision on its own merits.

14.   Mr.   Karandikar,   learned     Advocate   appearing   for   the
Respondent, submitted that the Power of Attorney in favour of the
Petitioner had been cancelled by a termination notice dated 25
June 2012. According to him, once the landlady withdrew the
appeal and there was no transfer of any interest in the property
through the Power of Attorney, the Review Application was rightly
dismissed by the M.R.T. He submitted that the M.R.T. had given
liberty to the Petitioner to pursue and claim his rights before the
Civil Court., according to him, the Petitioner was not without a



                                 11
                                                         WP-12946-2016.doc


remedy. He submitted that the Power of Attorney only gave the
Petitioner the right to file, institute and conduct proceedings on
behalf of the landlady. It did not give the Petitioner any right or
interest in the suit property. On this basis, he submitted that the
M.R.T. had rightly dismissed the Review Application and that no
interference was required with the impugned order.

REASONS AND FINDINGS:

15.   I have heard Mr. Savant, learned Advocate for the Petitioner,
and Mr. Karandikar, learned Advocate for the Respondent. I have
considered the pleadings, the proceedings before the concerned
authorities and the material placed before this Court. The dispute
is an old dispute relating to agricultural land bearing old Survey
No.16/4, now Gat No.219/4, situated at Village Shirdhon, Taluka
Panvel, District Raigad. However, for deciding this Petition, it is not
necessary to decide the old tenancy dispute. The main question
which is required to be considered is whether the learned
President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was right in
refusing to recall the order dated 3 April 2014, by which Revision
Application No.243 of 2012 came to be disposed of as withdrawn.

16.   For considering this question, it is necessary to see what
happened earlier. The original proceedings under Section 32-G
were started in the year 1964 by Shri Gorya Posha Vajekar, who
was the predecessor of the Respondents. Those proceedings were
later postponed because the landlady was a widow. Thereafter, the
legal heirs of the original claimant were brought on record. After
many years, proceedings under Sections 70(b) and 32-G were




                                  12
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


again taken forward. The learned A.L.T. passed an order dated 22
February 2011 fixing the purchase price in favour of the
Respondents. The said order was challenged before the learned
S.D.O., Panvel. The appeal was dismissed on 24 May 2012. The
Petitioner thereafter approached the M.R.T. by filing Revision
Application No.243 of 2012. It is not disputed that the said
Revision Application was admitted by the M.R.T. and stay was
granted to the order dated 24 May 2012 passed by the learned
S.D.O. The Revision Application was not merely filed and kept
pending at the first stage. It was admitted and was being
considered by the Tribunal., Mr. Savant submitted that the learned
President ought to have restored the Revision Application instead
of allowing it to remain withdrawn.

17.   The main grievance of the Petitioner is about the manner in
which the Revision Application was withdrawn. According to the
Petitioner, Smt. Savita K. Chopra claimed to act as Power of
Attorney holder of Smt. Shardabai G. Oze and filed a pursis for
withdrawing the Revision Application. According to the Petitioner,
this was done without giving notice to him and without
considering the rights claimed by him. The order dated 3 April
2014 records that, "as per the pursis filed today, their Revision is
withdrawn by Revisional Applicant unconditionally and hence it is
disposed of as withdrawn." Thus, the Revision Application was not
decided after hearing the parties on merits. It came to an end only
because the revisional applicant stated that she was withdrawing
it. The Petitioner has relied upon the earlier proceedings before the
M.R.T. He points out that on 21 December 2012 the Tribunal had



                                 13
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


noticed that there was a dispute regarding which of the two Power
of Attorneys should proceed with the matter. The order stated that
if the constituted Attorneys did not resolve the dispute amicably,
necessary order would be passed., the question regarding the
authority of the persons claiming to act for Smt. Shardabai G. Oze
was known to the Tribunal. It was not a question which came
before the Tribunal for the first time after the Revision Application
was withdrawn.

18.   There is one more circumstance which is required to be seen.
According to the Petitioner, the termination of the Agreement for
Sale dated 29 May 2007 and the Power of Attorney dated 29
October 2006 was challenged in Special Civil Suit No.329 of 2012
before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. It is stated
that an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed in that suit.
The Civil Court considered the application and passed an order of
status quo in respect of the suit property. The said civil suit, in
which specific performance is claimed, is still pending.

19.   The Petitioner relies upon this fact and submits that his
rights could not have come to an end merely because the Revision
Application was withdrawn. According to the Petitioner, he and
Shri Naresh Kesarimal Mehta had paid Rs.80 lakhs under the
Agreement for Sale. In paragraph 39 of the earlier submissions, the
Petitioner's case is stated as follows: "The Petitioner stated that
Respondent No.1 had received consideration of Rs.80 lakhs under
the Agreement for Sale and had thereafter given the Power of
Attorney in favour of the Petitioner." Mr. Savant submitted that "a



                                 14
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


substantial amount of Rs.80 lakhs was paid by cheque to Smt.
Shardabai G. Oze" and that the amount "was duly credited to her
bank account." The alleged payment of Rs.80 lakhs is an important
fact. If the payment is supported by the Agreement for Sale and
the bank record, it cannot be said that the Petitioner had no
connection with the transaction. It shows that the Petitioner is
claiming some rights arising from that transaction. But merely
because Rs.80 lakhs was paid, this Court cannot say in the present
Petition that ownership or a legally enforceable interest in the land
had passed to the Petitioner or to Shri Dilip Kesarimal Mehta and
Shri Naresh Kesarimal Mehta. For deciding that question, the
Agreement for Sale, the Power of Attorney, the alleged termination
and the other documents are required to be considered. The rival
claims are pending before the Civil Court.

20.   Mr. Savant submitted that the "agreement for sale and the
power of attorney was coupled with the consideration" and that
"the said consideration was accepted and the interest in the
property was created in favour of Shri Dilip Kesarimal Mehta and
Shri Naresh Kesarimal Mehta." I am unable to record this as a final
finding in the present Petition. Payment of money under an
agreement and creation of a legally enforceable interest in
immovable property are two different things. The effect of the
Agreement for Sale, the Power of Attorney and the alleged
termination has to be decided after considering the documents and
evidence. Since the Civil Court is considering this dispute, it would
not be proper for this Court to decide these questions in the
present writ proceedings.



                                 15
                                                        WP-12946-2016.doc


21.   Mr. Savant submitted that the contract could not have been
terminated because "substantial consideration was passed in
favour of Smt. Shardabai G. Oze". The receipt of consideration is
an important fact. But from the payment alone, it cannot be
decided whether the Agreement for Sale was validly terminated. It
cannot be decided in this Petition whether the Power of Attorney
could legally be cancelled, what rights were created in favour of
the purchasers and what relief can be granted on the basis of the
payment. These matters depend upon the documents and evidence
and they are part of the civil proceedings. I am unable to accept
the submission that payment of Rs.80 lakhs gave the Petitioner
right to seek restoration of the Revision Application before the
M.R.T.

22.   At the same time, the submission of Mr. Karandikar that the
Petitioner had no interest at all in the transaction cannot be
accepted in such broad terms. Mr. Karandikar submitted that the
Power of Attorney only gave the Petitioner "the right to file,
institute and conduct proceedings on behalf of the landlady" and
"did not give the Petitioner any right or interest in the suit
property." Whether this submission is correct can be considered in
the civil proceedings. At present, the material shows the
Petitioner's case that an Agreement for Sale was executed, Rs.80
lakhs was paid, a Power of Attorney was executed and thereafter
the Petitioner and others instituted a suit for specific performance.,
it cannot be said that the Petitioner had no claim arising from the
transaction. Whether that claim will succeed is a separate question.




                                 16
                                                       WP-12946-2016.doc


23.   The next question is regarding the authority of the person
who withdrew the Revision Application. Mr. Karandikar submitted
that the Power of Attorney of the Petitioner had been cancelled by
a termination notice dated 25 June 2012. According to him, once
the landlady withdrew the appeal and no interest in the property
was transferred to the Petitioner through the Power of Attorney,
the Review Application was rightly dismissed by the M.R.T. There
is some substance in the submission that if a Power of Attorney is
revoked, the person holding that authority cannot continue to act
on the basis of the revoked authority. However, in the present case,
the validity and effect of the alleged termination are disputed by
the Petitioner. That dispute is connected with the civil proceedings.
The material relied upon by the Petitioner shows that he disputes
the termination. The dispute is pending before the Civil Court. The
Civil Court has passed an order of status quo., the M.R.T. had
earlier noticed that there was a dispute regarding the two Powers
of Attorney. In such circumstances, the matter cannot be treated as
if the Power of Attorney was cancelled and nothing remained to be
considered by the Tribunal.

24.   The learned President of the M.R.T. disposed of the Review
Application on the ground that the person who had allegedly
executed the Power of Attorney in favour of the Applicant was no
more. The Tribunal made it clear that the order was passed not on
merits. It clarified that the Applicant's right to pursue his civil
rights before the appropriate Civil Court was not prevented. This
part of the order is important. The M.R.T. did not decide that the
Petitioner had no right under the Agreement for Sale. It did not



                                 17
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


decide that Rs.80 lakhs had not been paid. It did not decide that
the Agreement for Sale had been validly terminated. It did not
decide the dispute regarding the two Powers of Attorney.
Therefore, the question before this Court is not whether the
Petitioner has some right or no right. The order of the M.R.T.
leaves the civil rights of the Petitioner open. The question is
whether the M.R.T. committed such an error in refusing to restore
the Revision Application that interference by this Court in its writ
jurisdiction is required. In my view, the answer is in the negative.
The main disputes relied upon by the Petitioner for seeking
restoration of the Revision Application are connected with the civil
suit. The payment of Rs.80 lakhs, the Agreement for Sale dated 29
May 2007, the Power of Attorney dated 29 October 2006, its
alleged termination, the authority of Smt. Savita K. Chopra and
the rights claimed by the Petitioner and the other purchasers are
all connected with the civil dispute. If the M.R.T. were to decide
these questions for the purpose of restoring the revision, there
would be a possibility that such findings may overlap with the
questions pending before the Civil Court.

25.   I cannot accept the submission that merely because Smt.
Shardabai G. Oze received Rs.80 lakhs, it became impossible for
her to terminate the transaction. The payment is an important
circumstance. But its legal effect has to be decided from the
Agreement for Sale, the other documents and the conduct of the
parties. These matters are before the Civil Court, no final finding
regarding the effect of the payment is required to be made in the
present Petition. At the same time, the submission of the



                                 18
                                                          WP-12946-2016.doc


Respondent that the Petitioner had no interest at all in the matter
cannot be accepted in its widest form. The Petitioner has shown
that he is claiming on the basis of the Agreement for Sale, payment
of consideration and the Power of Attorney. He has filed a civil suit
for specific performance., his grievance regarding the withdrawal
of the Revision Application cannot be said to be without basis.
However, this does not establish that the Petitioner has acquired
title in the suit property. That question remains open.

26.   The Petitioner has alleged that Smt. Savita K. Chopra acted
"behind the back of the petitioner" and with a "malafide intention".
On the material available, I am unable to record a final finding of
fraud or mala fides. There are circumstances which raise a
question regarding the manner in which the Revision Application
was withdrawn. But a finding of mala fides requires clear material.
The existence of a dispute regarding the Power of Attorney, the
disputed termination and the allegation that notice was not given
are not sufficient to hold that the withdrawal was made with mala
fide intention.

27.   The objection regarding the authority of Shri Dilip Shankar
Pawar does not change the result. The Petitioner contends that the
Power of Attorney in favour of Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar was dated
3 October 2006, whereas the Power of Attorney under which the
executants obtained authority was dated 29 March 2007. This is a
factual issue which may have importance. However, it is not
necessary in the present Petition to decide the authority of all the
persons who appeared in the tenancy proceedings. Such objections
may have relevance in the tenancy proceedings. The question



                                 19
                                                      WP-12946-2016.doc


before this Court is regarding the withdrawal of the Revision
Application and the Review Application which followed it.

28.   Thus, after considering the submissions of both sides, I find
that there was a genuine dispute regarding the Power of Attorney,
the Agreement for Sale, the payment of Rs.80 lakhs and the
manner in which the Revision Application was withdrawn. The
learned President of the M.R.T. may not have considered every
circumstance in the manner in which the Petitioner desired.
However, the impugned order states that it was passed not on
merits. It says that the right of the Applicant to pursue his civil
rights before the appropriate Civil Court was not prevented. In the
facts of the present case, where the Agreement for Sale and the
Power of Attorney are the subject matter of a civil suit and where
the Civil Court has passed an order of status quo, the impugned
order does not take away the rights claimed by the Petitioner.

29.   For the reasons stated above, the challenge to the order
dated 18 June 2015 fails. The rights and contentions of the parties
arising from the Agreement for Sale dated 29 May 2007, the Power
of Attorney dated 29 October 2006, the alleged termination, the
payment of Rs.80 lakhs and the pending Special Civil Suit No.329
of 2012 are left open for decision by the competent Civil Court in
accordance with law. Nothing stated in this judgment shall be
treated as a final decision on those civil rights.

30.   In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material record, the following order is passed:

      (i)   The Writ Petition is dismissed.



                                   20
                                                   WP-12946-2016.doc


(ii)   The order dated 18 June 2015 passed by the learned
President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in
Review Application No.2 of 2014 is upheld;

(iii) It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon
the substantive civil rights claimed by the Petitioner or the
other concerned parties arising out of the Agreement for Sale
dated 29 May 2007, the Power of Attorney dated 29 October
2006, the alleged termination thereof or the payment of
Rs.80 lakhs;

(iv) The rights and contentions of the parties in respect of
the aforesaid Agreement for Sale, Power of Attorney, alleged
termination, payment of consideration and the relief of
specific performance shall remain open for consideration by
the competent Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No.329 of
2012, in accordance with law;

(v)    It is further clarified that the observations made in this
judgment are confined to the controversy arising in the
present Writ Petition and shall not be treated as a final
finding upon the title, ownership, validity of the Agreement
for Sale, validity of the Power of Attorney, its alleged
termination or the entitlement of any party to specific
performance;

(vi) The pending Special Civil Suit No.329 of 2012 shall be
decided on its own merits and in accordance with law,
without being influenced by any observation made in the
present judgment;



                            21
                                                WP-12946-2016.doc


(vii) Rule is discharged.

(viii) There shall be no order as to costs.

                                       (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                            22