Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
KISHORE C.SANT
Ananda S/o. Ragho Puri (Died) Through his legal heirs – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KISHORE C. SANT, J.
This petition arises out of the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in Appeal No. 12/A/2022/H dated 25.01.2023. The learned Member by way of impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Collector, Hingoli dated 16.03.2022 is confirmed by which application of the respondents came to be allowed. It is directed to learned Tahsildar to give possession of land Survey No. 38 to the petitioners as protected tenants.
2. The dispute revolves around the tenancy rights and eviction proceedings under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “Hyderabad Tenancy Act”). There is checkered history to this litigation. The parties are litigating since last more than 60 years. In the meantime, various proceedings have taken before the Revenue Court which reached even till this High Court. The petitioners claim their right as a tenant and are fighting for the same. The respondent Nos. 2 to 6 - landlords had started proceeding for restoration of possession under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. The dispute is in res
A judgment obtained by fraud is null and void; prior tenant rights must be respected without proper challenge to their status.
The ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, 1950 is a formal declaration of ownership conferred on the protected tenant by virtue of the statutory provisions, and the i....
The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to revoke ownership certificates under Section 38(E) after a significant lapse of time unless fraud is clearly and specifically proven.
Protected tenants - Restoration of possession of lands - Application filed by appellants/petitioners for restoration under Section 32 of Tenancy Act, were far beyond reasonable time and lacked bonafi....
The tenant's delay and admissions preclude claims under the Tenancy Act, emphasizing the validity of prior transactions and the necessity of prompt challenges.
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
The court established that tenancy rights can be terminated not only by efflux of time but also by changes in land use as per statutory provisions.
The court established that transactions involving agricultural land require prior permission under the Tenancy Act, and failure to obtain such permission renders the transaction void.
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
