Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
N. J. Jamadar, J.
Kondiba Dnyanu Dongale - Petitioners
Vs.
Kashibai Ramrao Nigade - Respondents
Writ Petition NO.7723 OF 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2023
Article 227 - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 33B, 88C - The court examined the legality and correctness of a judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune in Revision Application bearing Nos. NS/X/1/2020, NS/X/2/2020, NS/X/3/2020 and NS/X/4/2020. The petitioners challenged the order granting certificate under section 88C and the subsequent application for delivery of possession under section 33B. The court considered whether the aspect of economic holding and annual income of the legal representatives of the certificated landlord are required to be inquired into in the event the certificated landlord passes away during pendency of the proceedings and before delivery of possession under section 32B of the Act, 1948. The court examined the interplay between the provisions contained in sections 88C, 33B, and 33C of the Act, 1948 and clarified that these provisions operate in different spheres. The court held that the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948 need to be considered for the purpose of determination of the application for delivery of possession under section 33B. The court remitted the matter to the authorities under the Act, 1948 to consider and determine the issue of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948. The court directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune to decide the Revision Applications in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a challenge to the legality and correctness of a judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune in Revision Application bearing Nos. NS/X/1/2020, NS/X/2/2020, NS/X/3/2020 and NS/X/4/2020. The petitioners contested the order granting certificate under section 88C and the subsequent application for delivery of possession under section 33B. The core question was whether the aspect of economic holding and annual income of the legal representatives of the certificated landlord are required to be inquired into in the event the certificated landlord passes away during pendency of the proceedings and before delivery of possession under section 32B of the Act, 1948.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948 need to be considered for the purpose of determination of the application for delivery of possession under section 33B. The court remitted the matter to the authorities under the Act, 1948 to consider and determine the issue of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948. The court directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune to decide the Revision Applications in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Issues: The core question was whether the aspect of economic holding and annual income of the legal representatives of the certificated landlord are required to be inquired into in the event the certificated landlord passes away during pendency of the proceedings and before delivery of possession under section 32B of the Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948 need to be considered for the purpose of determination of the application for delivery of possession under section 33B. The court held that the aspect of the extent of the holding of the legal representatives is of salience while deciding an application under section 33B. The court directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune to decide the Revision Applications in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Final Decision: The court remitted the matter to the authorities under the Act, 1948 to consider and determine the issue of compliance of the conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Act, 1948. The court directed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune to decide the Revision Applications in the light of the observations contained in the judgment and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission.
2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality, propriety and correctness of a judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2022 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Pune in Revision Application bearing Nos. NS/X/1/2020, NS/X/2/2020, NS/X/3/2020 and NS/X/4/2020 whereby the Revision Applications preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed affirming the order dated 14th July, 2020 passed by the SDO, Karad, Dist. Satara in Tenancy Appeal No. 88 of 2018 which, in turn, had affirmed the order dated 5th May, 2018 passed by Tahsildar-ALT, Karad in Tenancy Case No. 222 of 2017 thereby allowing the application of the respondents/ landlords for delivery of the possession of the agricultural lands bearing Gut Nos.27/1, 29 and 30/3 (Survey No. 180, 181 and 182) situated at Mangwadi, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara (the subject lands) under section 33B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act, 1948).
3. Though the instant petition also presents a usual feature of multiple rounds of litigation before the authorities under the Act, 1948 yet, shorn of unnecessary details, the background facts can be stated as under:-
b} By judgment and order dated 5th February, 1964, the ALT allowed the applications and ordered the tenants to deliver the possession of the subject lands to the landlords. The tenants preferred an appeal being Tenancy Appeal Nos. 19 of 1967 and 68 of 1967 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara. By a judgment and order dated 31st January, 1991 the appeals came to be dismissed affirming the orders passed by ALT on 5th February, 1964.
c} A Revision Application being Application No. NS/IV/2/1991 was filed by the tenants before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. By a judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2017 the learned Member, MRT, Pune was persuaded to allow the revision and remit the matter back to ALT to decide it afresh on the point of economic holding of the legal representatives of the landlords and income of the respective legal representatives of the landlords in the light of the limit prescribed under section 88C of the Act, 1948. The learned Member was of the view that since all 3 certificated landlords died pending the lis and the applications for possession of the subject lands were being prosecuted by the legal representatives, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinkar Maruti Jadhav vs. Nivrutti Gangaram Pawar, (2008) 5 SCC 489 an inquiry as to the economic holding and income of the legal representatives, who were prosecuting the application, was warranted.
d} Upon remand, ALT was again persuaded to allow the application and direct the tenants to deliver the possession of the subject lands under section 33B read with 29 of the Act, 1948. ALT was of the view that the certificate under section 88C came to be granted in the light of the then prevailing circumstanc
The conditions stipulated under section 33B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 need to be considered for the purpose of determination of the application for delivery of posse....
Heirs of a deceased certificated landlord must prove their own bona fide requirement for personal cultivation when seeking possession of land under Section 33-B.
The right of a certificated landlord to apply for possession does not lapse upon death and can be exercised by a successor in interest.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in determining proc....
The landlord's entitlement to resume land for personal cultivation is subject to the conditions mentioned in Section 33B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In cases of join....
The court clarified that a tenant automatically becomes the statutory owner of remaining land when a landlord's application for a partial possession is granted under the Tenancy Act.
Right to terminate tenancy under Section 33B for bona fide personal cultivation abates on certified landlord's death, is not inheritable by heirs, and extinguishes upon land sale.
Right to terminate tenancy under Section 33B for bona fide personal cultivation is personal to certified landlord, abates on death, not inheritable; extinguished by land sale, barring heirs' claims.
The court affirmed that the exemption certificate under Section 88B of the Tenancy Act was valid as the Trust met the necessary criteria, and the Petitioners' claims of tenancy did not negate this.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
