Valid tenancy must be established with necessary approval from authorities; mere possession or historical claims do not confer legal tenancy rights.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This writ petition is filed with following substantive prayer:-

(a) By issuing appropriate writ/order/direction, the impugned order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Member (Administrative) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Revision Application No. TNC/REV/NSK/56/2004 be quashed and set aside and that passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Niphad Division, Niphad dated 15.05.2004 in Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 2004 and order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Tahsildar and ALT, Niphad in Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1999 be restored.

2. The facts in brief, leading for filing the petition are as under:-

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner's predecessor preferred application under Section 70 (B) of Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, for declaration of tenancy. By order dated 06.09.1996, petitioner's predecessor was declared as tenant. However, said decision was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded for re-trial. Once again by order dated 04.09.1998, petitioner's predecessor was declared as tenant. Again the matter was remanded by SDO, Niphad Division, Niphad in Tenancy Appeal No. 7 of 1998. After this second remand, the case was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1999 and was tried by Tahsildar and ALT, Niphad. It is further the case of the petitioner that in the meantime, by consent of parties, purchase price in respect of remaining two lands bearing Survey Nos. 758/12 and 758/13 came to be fixed, and accordingly purchase price was paid and accepted by the landlords. The Petitioner submits that, however, in respect of Survey No. 758/14, the proceeding of application under Section 70 (B) of the said Act, continued.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that, in the third remand, after repeated adjournments, on 20.10.2000, on behalf of the land owners, statement was recorded wherein they have clearly accepted the lawful cultivation by petitioner's grandfather, and thereafter petitioner's father and thereafter petitioner. Remaining landlords also consented for said statement. In the statement of petitioner's predecessor dated 19.01.2001, it was specifically deposed by him that the land was in his lawful cultivation and said cultivation was, since from his grandfather's time and the rent has been paid to the landlords, regularly. The learned Tahsildar, upon perusal of record and proceeding and after going through the available evidence was pleased to declare Daulatrao Pandharinath Bankar as tenant in respect of suit land by his order dated 21.12.2002.

5. The Petitioner further submits that, further proceeding under Section 32G of the said Act, was also initiated and purchase price came to be fixed by order dated 31.07.2003. The petitioner submits that, respondent nos. 1 to 6 also participated in said proceeding and in said proceeding specific plea was raised that, since they have not received any rent from 1975 onwards, they are entitled to possession of the land. It is further the case of the petitioner that, said order passed under Section 32G of the said Act, was never challenged by the land owners and the same order attained finality.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that the order passed by Tahsildar and SDO, were challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by preferring revision application under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. That, originally the revision was filed in 2004 before the Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik since the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not functioning. Said revisi