Maruti Kalhatkar Vs. Ramu Rakhamaji Kalhatkar & Anr  INSC 500 (15 October 1998)
appeal filed by the original owner of th esuit land is directed against the
judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No. 221/83.
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 and is prohibited under The Bombay Prevention of
Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
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 thereunder.
The respondents approached the High Court and their appeal has been allowed.
only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
land being a agent the sale in favour of the respondents 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 competent authority.
Section 36 A of the Act clearly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle,
decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act required to be
settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government or any officer or
appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.