.jpg)
The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court ruled that even if acquisition proceedings are still pending before the high court, the tehsildar has the authority under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code to correct a land's status in the revenue record that may have a significant impact on the amount of compensation. The Tehsildar's order to update the land revenue record was being challenged by Western Coalfields Limited (WCL) on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction in a writ suit before the Bombay High Court.
In the instant case titled Western coalfields ltd v. Tahsildar Kamptee & ors., the issue raised before the Bombay High Court was:
What is the true scope and interpretation of Section 155 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966?
With regard to the issue, the court stated that A Revenue Officer may exercise their authority under section 155 without being subject to any restrictions, the court found after reading section 155 of the Code. The court discovered that the Tehsildar's conclusion was based on spot inspection after reviewing his instructions and the documents filed with the court.
The court further noted that WCL had doubts about the properties being listed in the income records as non-irrigated areas. In such a situation, WCL cannot assert that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction when he issued the orders rectifying the record's inaccuracy. The only prerequisite under section 155 is that the parties involved be informed and have an opportunity to voice their objections before an order of correction in the revenue record is passed.
The court further ruled that the validity of the Tehsildar's use of authority and the directives he issued could not be evaluated in light of ongoing litigation regarding the amount of compensation. While the proceedings before the Tahsildar under Section 155 of the Code are separate proceedings, those proceedings are to decide just and fair compensation to the land owners.
The court categorically stated 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".
Hence, the court decided that the Tehsildar's directives in the current case should stand since WCL declined to object to comparable modifications to revenue records pertaining to other land owners.