Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Tenancy Act, and any mutation affecting such rights must follow proper notice procedures.

JUDGMENT :

(Gauri Godse, J.)

1. This petition challenges the order passed by the Additional Commissioner in a review application, allowing the revision application filed by the respondents under section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 ('MLRC'). The dispute between the parties in the present petition is in connection with the respondents' claim of tenancy rights through Mhadu Bhau Jondhale.

2. The dispute between the parties is with regard to 4.30 H-R out of 12.90 H-R of Gat No. 218 (old survey no. 40) (said land). Ramnath Marwadi was the original landlord of the said land. One Bhau Dhondu Jondhale was cultivating the said land as a tenant. On 18th September 1957, the names of Bhau Jondhale's sons, Mahadu and Fakira were entered in the revenue record by way of mutation entry no. 384 as joint tenants of the said land. The name of Mahadu Jondhale was deleted by mutation entry no. 448 dated 27th August 1959. It is the petitioners' case that said mutation entry was based on an inquiry under section 40 of Bombay (now Maharashtra) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Tenancy Act'). It is the petitioners' case that since Mahadu was not cultivating the said land, only the name of Fakira was retained as a tenant, and the name of Mahadu was deleted. The said mutation entry no. 448 was certified on 19th April 1960.

3. By order dated 31st March 1960, the order under section 32G was issued in the name of Fakira. Entry of the said order was made in the revenue record by way of mutation entry no. 507. According to the petitioners, they paid the purchase price and the certificate under section 32M was issued on 2nd February 1994.

4. On 30th January 1994, respondents filed an application to enter their names as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu. By order dated 23rd February 1994, names of respondents were entered as heirs and legal representatives of Mahadu by way of mutation entry no. 2074. The petitioners raised an objection to the said mutation entry. Considering the objections raised by the petitioners, mutation entry 2074 was rejected on 31st March 1995 by the Circle Officer. Hence, the respondents filed RTS Appeal No. 55 of 1995 before the Sub-Divisional Officer('SDO'). By order dated 20th December 1996, SDO allowed the appeal and the order cancelling mutation entry 2074 was set aside, and the mutation entry 2074 was certified. Hence, the petitioners filed RTS Appeal No. 29 of 1997 before the learned Collector. By order dated 21st November 1997, the Collector allowed the appeal, and the order by SDO in favour of respondents was set aside. Hence, respondents filed RTS Revision No. 71 of 1998 before the Additional Commissioner. By Judgment and Order dated 23rd April 1999, revision application was allowed, and the order by Additional Collector was set aside, and the SDO's order in favour of respondents was restored. The petitioners filed a review application before the Additional Commissioner, who rejected the review application. Hence, the order in favour of the respondents was confirmed. Hence, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order passed under section 32G in favour of Fakira on 31st March 1960 was never challenged by the respondents. He submitted that the name of Mahadu was deleted by mutation entry no. 448 certified on 19th April 1960; however, the said mutation entry was also never challenged. Thus, in view of the impugned orders passed under the MLRC, orders passed under the Tenancy Act, fixing purchase price in favour of Fakira, and issuance of 32M certificate are sought to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had filed a civil suit to protect their possession. The civil suit was decreed, and the respondents were restrained from interfering with the possession and cultivation of the petitioners over the suit land. Respondents challenged the said decree by way of a first appeal. However, the first appeal was dismissed,