The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 4 and Section 32-O of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, emphasizing the concept of lawful cultivation and the protection of tenant rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties heard finally.

2. The petitioners take exception to a judgment and order dated 9th February, 2021 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Tenancy Revision – NSK No.193 of 2017, whereby the revision application preferred by respondent Nos.1a to 1e came to be allowed by setting aside the order dated 23rd March, 2015 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal (“ALT”) and Tahsildar, Igatpuri holding that respondent Nos.1a to 1e are not the tenants, and the order dated 8th June, 2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Igatpuri, in Tenancy Appeal No.5 of 2015, affirming the aforesaid order of the ALT. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”) thus held that respondent Nos.1a to 1e were the tenants of the agricultural land bearing Gat No.296 situated at village Mukane, Taluka Igatpuri (“the subject land”).

3. Background facts leading to this petition can be stated in brief as under:

(a) The petitioners claim that Namdeo Kondaji Jadhav, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, was the holder of the subject land. As the subject land has been the ancestral property of Namdeo, the name of Kondaji Nana Kumbar, the predecessor-in-title of Namdeo was mutated to the cultivator’s column of the subject land in the year 1937. However, in connivance with the officers of the revenue department and behind the back of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners the name of one Babu Devram Aware came to be mutated to the subject land as the owner thereof by making a pencil entry. Subsequently, the name of Kisan Tulshiram Aware, the predecessor-in-title of respondent No.1a to 1e, came to be mutated to the cultivator’s column of the subject land. All these entries were allegedly made without notice to the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and the subject land had along been in the possession and cultivation of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners.

(b) Taking undue advantage of the paper entry Kisan Tulshiram Aware started to cause obstruction to the possession of the plaintiffs predecessor-in-title over the subject land. Namdeo Jadahv thus was constrained to initiate proceedings for a declaration that Kisan Aware was not a tenant in the subject land. The said Tenancy Application No.3 of 1979 was allowed. In appeal, however, the Sub-Divisional Officer negatived the claim of Namdeo and made a declaration in favour of Kisan Aware. Tenancy Appeal No.87 of 1981 preferred before the MRT was also dismissed primarily on the ground of delay in filing the revision application. Writ Petition No.928 of 1982 preferred by Namdeo came to be disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings, if so advised.

(c) In the meanwhile, the deceased Kisan Aware, preferred Regular Civil Suit No.145 of 1979 seeking a decree of perpetual injunction. By a judgment and decree dated 9th February, 1999, the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Igatpuri, decreed the suit and perpetually restrained the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners from causing obstruction to the possession and enjoyment of Kisan Aware over the subject land otherwise than by following due process of law. Civil Appeal No.6 of 2000 preferred by the petitioners came to be dismissed on 29th September, 2001. The second appeal preferred there against is subjudice before this Court.

(d) The petitioners instituted a suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.251 of 2001, before the Civil Court, Nashik, for possession, declaration and injunction. By orders dated 18th September, 2009 and 13th September, 2009, the learned Civil Judge was persuaded to frame issues as to whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the deceased respondent No.1 was the tenant of the subject land and also make a reference to the ALT for adjudicating the issue of tenancy. Writ Petition No.1050 of 2009 preferred by Namdeo came