Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.M.Sathaye, J.
Bayakka & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Ravindra Shamrao Deshpande & Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 11140 of 2015
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Landlord - Tenancy Dispute - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 - Section 32G, Section 32F(1)(a), Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act - The court upheld the decision of the authorities below, confirming that the widow was the absolute owner of the land on the tillers' day, and therefore the right of purchase by the tenant was rightly postponed. The court found no perversity or error in the orders impugned and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, concerning the ownership of a piece of land by a widow and her son. The petition sought to challenge the concurrent findings of the authorities below.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the widow was the absolute owner of the land on the tillers' day, and therefore the right of purchase by the tenant was rightly postponed. The court upheld the decisions of the authorities below and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the authorities below had conducted a proper inquiry as directed and whether there was any perversity or error apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional transgression.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the widow became the absolute owner of the land before the tillers' day, and therefore the right of purchase by the tenant was rightly postponed. The court found no perversity or error in the orders impugned.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the decisions of the authorities below, confirming that the widow was the absolute owner of the land on the tillers' day, and therefore the right of purchase by the tenant was rightly postponed.
JUDGMENT
M.M.Sathaye, J. - Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned counsel for the Respondents waive service. Heard finally by consent of parties.
2. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeks to quash and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune ('M.R.T.' for short) in Tenancy Revision No. TNC/REV/15/B/2000/KP by which, the Order dated 20.01.2000 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gadhinglaj Sub-Division, Gadhinglaj in Tenancy Appeal No. 30 of 1996 is confirmed, by which Judgment and Order dated 30.10.1996 passed Additional Tahsildar and ALT Chandgad in Tenancy Case No. 32G-Dukkarwadi-188 is confirmed. In short, this petition seeks to challenge concurrent findings.
3. The matter arises out of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act' for short. Land bearing survey No. 134, New Gat No. 587 admeasuring 67.8 Ares of village Dukkarwadi, Taluka Chandgad, District Kolhapur, is the subject matter property, which is hereinafter referred to as 'the said land' for short.
4. In view of arguments, which will be recorded below, I find it compelling to check facts necessary for deciding this petition, which are as below :
(ii) It appears that the concerned Tahsildar had suo moto started proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act in the year 1960, but as the landlady Radhabai was a widow at the relevant time, the said proceedings were dropped by order dated 31.10.1960. Thereafter, further inquiry was taken up by Tahsildar, Chandgad in the year 1974. However, it was revealed that both landlady and original tenant were dead by then and landlady had executed a Will in favour of her grand children, who are present Respondents. As both, grand children of the Radhabai were minors, the inquiry under Section 32 was postponed and it appears that the said inquiry was again revived in the year 1987, when the Additional Tahsildar and ALT proceeded to fix purchase price of suit land in favour of the present Petitioners.
(iii) Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Tenancy Appeal No. 13/1987 was preferred before the S.D.O, Gadhingalaj, who dismissed the same by order dated 17.04.1989.
(iv) Being aggrieved by this order, a Revision came to be filed by present Respondents in Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Camp at Kolhapur. It was Revision Application No. MRT-KP-77/1989, in which, a detailed order dated 15.02.1991 was passed considering all the facts on record, thereby remanding the matter to Tahsildar Chandgad for holding further inquiry under Section 32F(1)(a) of the said Act.
(v) Pursuant to remand, during inquiry, statements of said Shamrao and power of attorney holder of Petitioners (Ramu Zilu Turkewadkar) were recorded and by dated 30.10.1996, the Additional Tahsildar and ALT, Chandgad, declared the purchase of suit land as ineffective under Section 32G(3) of the said Act.
(vi) The present Petitioners alongwith one Smt. Rangubai Somana Varpe, (legal heirs of original Tenant), challenged the said order dated 30.10.1996 by filing Tenancy Appeal No. 30 of 1996 before the S.D.O., Gadhinglaj Sub-Division, Gadhinglaj under Section 74 of the said Act. This Appeal was dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2000.
(vii) It was challenged by Petitioners by filing Revision Application No. TNC/REV/1
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the widow's absolute ownership of the land on the tillers' day justified the postponement of the tenant's right to purchase the land.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement for tenants to send intimation of purchase to the landlord within the prescribed period after the death of the landlad....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the restricted nature of the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agri....
The court established that tenants must adhere to strict limitation periods under the BTAL Act when seeking to exercise their rights to purchase land, and failure to do so renders their applications ....
Brother cultivating widow's land is 'member of owner's family' under tenancy law Section 4(1)(a), excluding deemed tenancy absent tenancy proof; Section 32F protects widow's retained lands from tenan....
Brother cultivating widowed sister's land is family member under Section 4(1)(a), not deemed tenant without proof of tenancy; widow's retained lands protected under Section 32F. Concurrent findings u....
Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Tenancy Act, and any mutation affecting such rights must follow proper notice procedures.
The tenant was deemed a purchaser of the land under the Tenancy Act as of 1.4.1957, invalidating the landlord's later claims to ownership and asserting the tenant's rights.
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
