Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 1107
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.V. GANGAPURWALA
Jijabai W/o Vaijanth Karpure & Others
Versus
Mahadeo S/o Maruti Mote
WRIT PETITION NO. 1003 OF 1991
Decided on : 06-08-2010
For the Petitioners:M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate.
For the Respondent:S.K. Chavan, h/f V.D. Salunke, Advocates.
The Court emphasized the importance of considering crucial evidence, detailed terms of lease, and all aspects of the case before making a determination.
Headnote:
Tenancy - Dismissal of Tenancy Claim - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act - [Section 8 of the Tenancy Act, Judgment of the Apex Court in 'Sitaram Bhau Patil V/s. Ramchandra Nago Patil', Judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ratansingh V/s. Raviprakash', Judgment of the Apex Court in 'Thiru Jhon V/s. The Returning Officer & others', Judgment of the Apex Court in 'Hanmanta Daulaappa Nimbal, since deceased by his heirs and L.R.S. V/s. Babasaheb Dajisaheb Londhe', Judgment of the Apex Court in 'Ashok Dwarkanath Ghurye & another V/s. Narayan vasudev Dhond']
Fact of the Case:
The present respondents filed a suit for perpetual injunction claiming to be tenants of certain land. The issue of tenancy was referred to the tenancy court as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Tahasildar initially allowed the application of the respondents declaring them as tenants, but the Deputy Collector later dismissed the claim. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the High Court also dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the authorities had not considered crucial evidence and failed to discuss important aspects of the case. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter back to the Tahasildar for fresh determination, allowing both parties to lead further evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the tenancy claim, the reliance on written statements, the weight of evidence, and the consideration of crucial aspects by the authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the failure of the authorities to consider crucial evidence, the lack of detailed terms of lease, and the failure to discuss the case put forth by the petitioners regarding the undivided share in the land.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was partly allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Tahasildar for fresh determination, allowing both parties to lead further evidence.
The petitioner assails the Judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 3rd August, 1990, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform), Osmanabad dated 5th September, 1989 who had allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents by setting aside the Judgment and Order of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhoom dated 8th February, 1988.
2. The present respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No.89 of 1978 for perpetual injunction, in which the present petitioner’s are party defendants. The present respondents claim to be the tenants of the suit land survey No. 114/A and 115/A situated at Anjansawada, Tq. Bhoom. The present petitioners denied the tenancy, as claimed by the respondents in the said suit. As such the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhoom referred the said issue to the tenancy Court for adjudication as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (here-in-after referred as ‘Tenancy Act”). The present respondents had also independently filed an application under section 8 of the Tenancy Act for declaring him as a tenant.
3. The Tahasildar clubbed both the proceedings i.e. the proceedings initiated by the present respondents under section 8 of the Tenancy Act, for declaring it as a tenant and the proceedings pursuant to the issue of tenancy being referred by the Civil Court. Initially, the Tahasildar, allowed the application of the present respondent declaring him as a tenant. The present petitioner preferred an appeal, the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) remanded the matter back to the Tahasildar, for deciding the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to adduce evidence to the parties. After remand the Tahasildar, vide its Judgment dated 6th February, 1988 dismissed the claim of tenancy of the present respondents. The Deputy Collector (Land Reform), Osmanabad in the appeal preferred by the present respondent against the order of Tahasildar, allowed the appeal in absence of the appellant. The present petitioner, thereafter filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, at Aurangabad, who dismissed the said revision. The said order assailed before this Court.
4. Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently made following submissions.
I] As the issue of tenancy was referred by the Tahasildar to the Civil Court, the independent proceedings under Section 8 of the Tenancy Act were not maintainable.
ii] Respondent has not laid any evidence either oral or documentary to prove his tenancy. The Courts below have erroneously relied on the revenue entry which is only meant for fiscal purposes. There is no basis for such entry.
iii] The reliance on the alleged fraudulent written statement was erroneous. The petitioner has given an explanation about the same. When the tenancy was denied in Civil proceedings, there was no question of admitting tenancy before the Tahasildar. Immediately within 15 days fresh written statement was filed explaining the circumstance, about filing of earlier written statement. Moreover, the alleged admission in the alleged written statement cannot be conclusive. To buttress her submission the learned counsel relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in a case of “Sitaram Bhau Patil V/s. Ramchandra Nago Patil (dead) by Lrs and another, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1712”.
iv] When the authorities have committed an error of jurisdiction, the same can be corrected by this Court, exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. So also the relevant evidence has not been considered, as such, same deserves to be set aside, for the said purpose relies on the Judgment of this Court, in a case of “Devidas Govindrao Dankh V/s. Sudhakar s/o Annasaheb Deshpande & another, reported in 1980 BCR 356” and also in case of “Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao V/s. Ashalata S. Guram, reported in 1986(3) BCR 304”.
v] The details of the tenancy has not been giv
