Suppression of material facts and illegal orders by the Tahsildar led to the dismissal of the petitions, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant information and the need for due process of law in terminating tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, matter is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.

THE CHALLENGE

2. These two petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging common judgment and order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, Camp at Aurangabad in Revision Nos.30/B/2015/A and 31/B/2015/A. By that judgment and order, the Tribunal has upheld the order passed by the Deputy Collector, Aurangabad dated 02.02.2015 setting aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Paithan dated 09.01.2014. By order dated 09.01.2014 the Tahsildar held petitioners to be tenants in respect of lands, determined the price at Rs.5000/- under Section 38(4) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short ‘the Act, 1950) and upon payment of the said amount, a direction was issued for issuance of purchase certificate under the provisions of Section 38(5) and 38(6) of the Act, 1950.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The case of petitioners as pleaded is that their grandfather late Dagdu Bhai Raheem Bhai was a protected tenant in respect of lands bearing survey no.25 admeasuring 17 acre 9 gunthas as well as survey no.26 admeasuring 9 acre 31 gunthas(hereinafter referred to as ‘disputed lands’). Petitioners further aver that the name of Dagdu Bhai Raheem Bhai was recorded in the ‘other rights column’ of 7/12 extract, khasara patrak and phalni patrak. His name was also recorded in the register of tenants alongwith a consolidation statement.

4. On 11.11.2011, petitioners filed applications under Section 38 of the Act, 1950 before the Tahsildar, Paithan for fixation of reasonable price of disputed lands under Section 38(5) of the Act, 1950 and for issuance of purchase certificate under Section 38(6). The applications were resisted by respondent nos.3 to 9 herein by filing written statement.

5. Petitioners claim that a panchanama was conducted by Talathi, Chitegoan on 14.02.2012 recording a finding that the disputed lands were in their possession. The Tahsildar proceeded to pass orders dated 09.01.2014 allowing the applications of petitioners holding that their grandfather Dagdu Bhai Raheem Bhai was a protected tenant in respect of the disputed lands, which was in his possession prior to 1950. The Tahsildar relied upon panchanama conducted by Talathi, Chitegoan to arrive at a conclusion that the disputed lands still remained under possession of petitioners. The Tahsildar, therefore, declared them to be tenants in respect of the disputed lands and determined Rs.5000/- to be the purchase price of the disputed lands under Section 38(4) of the Act, 1950. The Tahsildar further directed that upon payment of that amount, purchase certificate be issued in the name of the petitioners under the provisions of Section 38(5) and 38(6) of the Act, 1950. On 17.02.2014 the Tahsildar directed the Talathi, Chittegaon to mutate the names of petitioners as tenants of the lands in the record of rights.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahsildar, respondent no.9 filed appeals before Deputy Collector, Aurangabad challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Respondent nos.4 to 8 also filed their separate appeals before the Deputy Collector challenging the orders passed by the Tahsildar. Respondent nos.4 to 9 claim to be successors in title to the disputed lands. The Deputy Collector was pleased to allow appeals by its order dated 02.02.2015 and set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar on 09.01.2014.

7. Petitioners preferred Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Camp at Aurangabad challenging the orders passed by the Deputy Collector. The Tribunal has proceeded to dismiss the Revision by orders dated 21.09.2021, which are subject matter of challenge in the present petition.

8. Petitions are opposed by respondent nos.4 to 9 by filing affidavits-in-reply. It is contended that respondent nos.4 to 9 are the purchasers of the disputed lands. That petitioners have suppressed