Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 837
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
V.R. KINGAONKAR
Malhari S/o Amruta Surnar deceased through Legal heirs & Others
Versus
Ranganath Amruta Kachave died through legal heirs: & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 246 OF 1993 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2784 OF 2008 IN W.P.246 OF 1993
Decided on: 23-06-2010
For the Petitioners:M.V. Deshpande, Advocate h/f. C.K. Shinde, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate, R2, D.R. Korde, AGP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rights of the protected tenant remained unaffected despite alleged refusal to take possession and a compromise pursis filed by some legal representatives. The court emphasized the importance of following legal formalities for surrender of tenancy rights and the protection provided to protected tenants under the tenancy law.
Headnote:
Tenancy Litigation - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Section 38E, Section 32 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, particularly Section 38E and Section 32, and their interpretations. The court highlighted the importance of following legal formalities for surrender of tenancy rights and the protection provided to protected tenants under the tenancy law. The court emphasized that the statutory ownership certificate issued to the protected tenant remained unaffected despite alleged refusal to take possession and a compromise pursis filed by some legal representatives. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a long-standing tenancy litigation between the landlords and the tenants over agricultural land. The dispute revolved around the declaration of the status as a protected tenant under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, and the subsequent restoration of possession of the tenanted land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rights of the protected tenant remained unaffected despite alleged refusal to take possession and a compromise pursis filed by some legal representatives. The court held that the impugned judgments and orders were unsustainable in the eye of the law and set them aside, restoring the previous judgments rendered by the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Issues: The issues involved in the case were: A - Whether the statutory ownership granted to the protected tenant had become ineffective due to alleged refusal to take possession; B - Whether there was a valid surrender of the tenancy rights by the protected tenant; C - What is the legal impact of the declaration of the land as surplus land and its distribution under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, particularly Section 38E and Section 32. The court emphasized the importance of following legal formalities for surrender of tenancy rights and the protection provided to protected tenants under the tenancy law. The court also referred to relevant case laws to support its interpretation of the legal provisions.
Final Decision: The Petition was allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders were set aside. The previous judgments rendered by the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were restored. The Tahsildar was directed to take appropriate action without any further delay.
1. Challenge in this Petition is to judgment and order dated 17.7.1992 rendered by learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurnagabad, in Revision Petition no. 106-B-91-P and to the judgment and order dated 27.6.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani in Tenancy Appeal no. 1981/TNC/A/48.
2. There is a checkered history to the tenancy litigation between the parties to the Petition. The period of litigation looms over a period of about 40 years. The petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Malhari Amruta Surnar. He was admittedly declared as a protected tenant of agricultural land bearing survey no.22, to the extent of 21 acres area, situated at village Makni under Gangakhed Tehsils as per provision of Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short "H.T. and A.L. Act"). Originally, land survey no. 22 was owned by one Rajaram S/o Niloba from whom deceased respondent no.1 Rangnath Amruta Kachave claimed the ownership rights. Said respondent no.1 Rangnath died during the pendency of the Petition and his legal representatives i.e. Rajaram and others are taken on record. They will be referred hereinafter as "the landlords" whereas the petitioners will be referred hereinafter as "the tenants". Consequent upon declaration of the status as protected tenant under section 38E of the H.T. and A.L. Act in favour of deceased Malhari (original tenant) on 25.5.1957, the Tahsildar, Gangakhed passed order dated 16.8.1962 (exhibit A) to the Petition. By that order, the tenanted land bearing survey no.22/59 was directed to be restored to deceased Malhari, the original protected tenant, since it was noticed that the original landlord i.e. Ramrao S/o Niloba had dispossessed the protected tenant in the meanwhile. The said order of Tahsildar was challenged by deceased respondent no.1 Rangnath by filing appeal no. 81/TNC/A/48 before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani. The learned Deputy Collector, dismissed the appeal. In the meanwhile, the landholder i.e. owner Rangnath was held as surplus land holder under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling of Holdings) Act, 1961 which had come into force. The land in question was also declared as surplus alongwith the other lands. Out of that land, certain fragments were distributed amongst landless persons including allotment of a fragment consisting of 4A 21G to deceased protected tenant Malhari. The land survey no.22 was considered as holding of deceased landlord Rangnath as per the information furnished by him in the Returns submitted to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.). It was perhaps done on the basis of inference that declaration of protected tenant in favour of deceased tenant Malhari had become ineffective because he had not been put in possession of the said land.
3. It appears that the learned Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by deceased landlord Rangnath and simultaneously upheld validity of declaration made under section 38E of the "H.T. and A.L. Act" in favour of deceased tenant Malhari. The Deputy Collector, therefore directed the Tahsildar to refer the case of wrong determination of distribution of the land survey no.22 and to request the S.L.D.T. to take action under section 46 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. The said order rendered by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on 31.12.1980 was challenged by deceased landlord Rangnath by filing Revision Petition. The revisional Tribunal i.e. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), however, dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The dismissal order was passed by the M.R.T. on 29.11.1983. Aggrieved by the orders of the M.R.T. and the Deputy Collector, deceased landlord Rangnath filed a Writ Petition in this Court. His Writ Petition no.753 of 1983 was partly allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 4.6.1990. The learned Single Judge of this
