Dismissed

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. v. Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde, through His C.A. Holder and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jul 2019WP/13582/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writing for a single judge, the High Court of Bombay dismissed this writ petition. Relying on concurrent findings by the Appellate Authority and the Revenue Tribunal that the petitioners are not tenants due to their relationship with the respondents, the Court held no case for interference existed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as no case for interference is made out based on concurrent findings of fact.

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs Rajguru Ganpatrao… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 5) wp13582-17.doc

¶2

SAS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.13582 OF 2017

¶6

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde & Ors. V/s.

¶7

Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Vikram Walawalkar I/b. Suresh M.Sabrad for the petitioners.

¶11

Mr.Suresh M.Kamble for respondent No.1.

¶12

Mr.C.D.Mali, AGP for respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM: NITIN W.SAMBRE, J.

¶14

DATE : JULY 30, 2019

¶15

P.C. :-

¶16

Heard. Vide order dated June 30, 2011 of the

¶17

Tenancy Awwal Karkoon, Gadhinglaj, pursuant to a reference made by the Civil Court Tenancy Awwal Karkoon passed an order in favour of the petitioners declaring them to be tenant.

¶18

The said order was reversed in Tenancy Appeal at the behest of the respondent-landlord vide order dated January 11, 2014 and further confrmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on September 25, 2017.

¶19

2 5) wp13582-17.doc

¶20

As such, this petition.

¶21

Submissions are, once the old revenue records of 1966 speaks of the possession of the petitioners over the land in question, the respondent-Awwal Karkoon has rightly described the petitioners as tenant. According to him, once the frst authority has appreciated the evidence in favour of petitioners. Just because diferent view was possible, the Sub-Divisional Ofcer in exercise of appellate powers ought not to have reversed the fndings. He would then urge that the Tribunal has committed an error in re-appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondents and learned AGP supports the order impugned.

¶23

Considered rival submissions.

¶24

Apart from the fact that Appellate Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Ofcer has recorded a fnding of fact that the petitioners cannot be declared as tenants for the land in question based on undisputed relationship between the petitioners and the respondents. Considering

¶25

3 5) wp13582-17.doc

¶26

the embargo under section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('the Act' for short), the fnding of fact is recorded by the Appellate Authority i.e. the Sub-Divisional Ofcer that the petitioners have no right to claim their status as that of tenants.

¶27

The fndings of fact are not disputed by the petitioners before the Maha rashtra Revenue Tribunal and also before this Court.

¶28

In the aforesaid backdrop and having regard to the concurrent fndings recorded by the Appellate Authority and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in my opinion, no case for interference is made out. The petition fails and is dismissed.

¶29

( NITIN W.SAMBRE, J. )

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. v. Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde, through His C.A. Holder and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. v. Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde, through His C.A. Holder and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Kumar Upadhyay Vs Mrs. Usha Jhaveri

Ramesh Kadam through Poa Holder and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohd. Aziz Abdul Sattar Shaikh Vs Union of India through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Sanjay Vasantrao Shinde and Ors. Vs Rajguru Ganpatrao Shinde, through His C.A. Holder and Ors.

Sou. Chandraprabha Devendra Agase Vs Solapur Mahanagarpalika Sarvasadharan Sevakanchi Sahakari Path Sanstha (M) and Ors.

Mr. Bhalchandra S. Mahanad Vs Syndicate Bank