'Creating Additional Tehsildar Office Does Not Tantamount To New Revenue Area Under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code': Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that the creation of an office of an Additional Tehsildar for administrative convenience does not amount to the creation or constitution of a new revenue area under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court clarified that such appointments are permissible under Sections 7 and 13 of the Code and do not require compliance with...
The Bombay High Court has held that the creation of an office of an Additional Tehsildar for administrative convenience does not amount to the creation or constitution of a new revenue area under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Court clarified that such appointments are permissible under Sections 7 and 13 of the Code and do not require compliance with the procedure of previous publication and notification mandated for altering revenue areas.
A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Y. G. Khobragade was hearing a Public Interest Litigation, filed challenging a Government Resolution dated 18 July 2023. By the resolution, the State had created an office of Additional Tehsildar, attaching 63 villages to the new office while the remaining villages continued under the Tehsildar. A subsequent notification dated 17 August 2023 under Section 13(3) empowered the Additional Tehsildar to exercise powers of the Tehsildar for the specified jurisdiction.
The petitioners contended that the resolution amounted to the constitution of a new revenue area and therefore required compliance with Section 4(4) of the Code and Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, which mandate previous publication and opportunity for objections.
The Court rejected these arguments, holding that the Government Resolution only created an office of Additional Tehsildar to assist the existing Tehsildar and did not alter or constitute a revenue area. It said:
“Additional Tahsildars can be appointed to assist the Tahsildars, and such appointments can be made by the State Government as per the expediency of the situation. It is to be kept in mind that appointments of Additional Tahsildars to assist the Tahsildars are for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of administration, and obviously, it does not amount to creating a new revenue area.”
The Bench referred to Sections 7 and 13 of the Code, which expressly empower the State to appoint Additional Tehsildars and to define their jurisdiction, powers and duties by notification. It observed that the requirement of previous publication under Section 4 applies only when the limits of districts, subdivisions, talukas, or villages are altered or amalgamated, which was not the case here.
The Court remarked that the whole basis of the contentions of the petitioner proceeds on the misconception that a revenue area has been created by the state while undertaking the impugned action.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, holding that the Government Resolution and subsequent notification were lawful exercises of power under Sections 7 and 13 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
Case Title: Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. [PIL (St.) No. 24738 of 2023]