Back
N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Arun R.Pedneker
Shankar S/O. Laxman Kurule – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Revenue And Forest Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Arun R. Pedneker, J.
1. Heard. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. By the present petition the petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.09.2025, passed by the Tahasildar, Beed in proceeding no.2025/KUL/KAVI4012, thereby cancelling the entries in the mutation record and all other government offices in respect of land survey no.19 bearing Gut No.24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and survey no.20 having Gut No.15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, situated at Mouje Talegaon, Distirct Beed, by cancelling the certificate dated 01.09.1960 issued under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950 (for brevity “the 1950 Act”) .
3. The case in brief of the petitioners is that in a proceeding initiated under Section 38(E) of the 1950 Act, name of Ganpati Kundlik Kurule and Abaji Ramji Jadhav were recorded in the abstract of protected tenancies part one Namuna No.5 on 15.09.1957 in respect of land survey no.19, admeasuring 19 Acres 22 Are and survey no.20, admeasuring 21 Acres 04 Are. The occupancy price was deposited by the tenant namely Ganpati Kundlik Kurule and Abaji Ramji Jadhav on 03.05.1966. Ganpati Kundlik Kurule died
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.
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....
A judgment obtained by fraud is null and void; prior tenant rights must be respected without proper challenge to their status.
The court emphasized the need for the Additional Collector to resolve disputed ownership claims under the Tenancy Act, ensuring due process and notice to all parties involved.
Suppression of material facts and illegal orders by the Tahsildar led to the dismissal of the petitions, emphasizing the importance of disclosing all relevant information and the need for due process....
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.
Tenancy rights cannot be terminated without due process under the Tenancy Act, and any mutation affecting such rights must follow proper notice procedures.
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
