Dismissed

Gangaram Bandu Madhavrao Kale v. Hasli Megha Pawar and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Sept 2019WP/3058/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's decision to uphold the Tenancy Court's finding that respondents were agricultural tenants. The High Court held that the Tribunal correctly exercised its jurisdiction under Article 227 without re-appreciating facts, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The Rule was discharged.

Gangaram Bandu Madhavrao Kale Vs Hasli Megha Pawar and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶2

(( 1 ))

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3058 OF 1992

¶5

Gangaram @ Bandu s/o Madhavrao Kale, Deceased, through his L.Rs.

¶6

A. Sangubai w/o Gangaram Kale Age 65 years, Occu. Household, R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur.

¶7

B. Saraswati w/o Devidas Bhalerao, Age 45 years, Occu. Household, R/o Malakoli, Tq. Loha, District Nanded.

¶8

C. Girisaheb @ Ramesh s/o Gangaram Kale, Age 42 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur

¶9

D. Sow. Mainabai w/o Vasant Mote, Age 40 years, Occu. Household, R/o Gunjegaon, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani.

¶10

E. Rangnath s/o Ganaram Kale, Age 38 years, Occu. Agril., R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur

¶11

F. Prakash s/o Ganaram Kale, Deceased, through his L.Rs.

¶12

F-1) Jaimala w/o Prakash Kale, Age 32 years, Occu. Shousehold, R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur

¶13

F-2) Santosh s/o Prakash Kale, Age 14 years, minor, u/g of his

¶14

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶15

(( 2 ))

¶16

mother Jaimala w/o Prakash kale, Age 32 years, Occu. Household, R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur

¶17

F-3)	Radhika d/o Prakash Kale, Aged 9 years, minor u/g of her mother Jaimala w/o Prakash kale, Age 32 years, Occu. Household, R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur
G.	Vithal s/o Ganaram Kale, Age 32 years, Occu. Agril. R/o Hali, Tq. Udgir, District Latur ... PETITIONERS
	VERSUS
1.	Hasli w/o Megha Pawar, Deceased, through his L.Rs. Already on record Respondents No.4 and 5
2.	Kishan s/o Megha Pawar, Deceased through his L.Rs.
2A)	Mangal w/o Kishan Pawar, Age major, Occu. Household, R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.
2B)	Subhash s/o Kishan Pawar, Age major, Occu. Agril. R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.
2C)	Nagu s/o Kishan Pawar, Age major, Occu. Agril. R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.
2D)	Prakash s/o Kishan Pawar, Age major, Occu. Agril.

¶18

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶19

(( 3 ))

¶20

R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.

¶21

2E) Vinayak s/o Kishan Pawar, Age major, Occu. Agril. R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.

¶22

Chandya s/o Megha Pawar, Deceased, through his L.R.

¶23

3A) Baburao s/o Chandya Pawar, Age major, Occu. Agril. R/o Hatkarwadi, Tq. Chakur, District Latur.

¶24

Balya s/o Megha Pawar, Age 39 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur.

¶25

Dhania s/o Megha Pawar, Age 41 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur.

¶26

Reva s/o Khoba Pawar, Age 58 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur.

¶27

(Appeal dismissed as against respondent No.6 as per Additional Registrar's Order dated 4/4/1994)

¶28

Sitaram s/o Khoba Pawar, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶29

7A) Gopinath s/o Sitaram Rathod, Age major, Occu. Agril., R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur.

¶30

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶31

(( 4 ))

¶32

7B) Ramu s/o Sitaram Rathod, Age major, Occu. Agril., R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur.

¶33

7C) Tukaram s/o Sitaram Rathod, Age major, Occu. Agril., R/o Hatkarwadi, Taluka Chakur, District Latur.

¶34

... RESPONDENTS

¶35

Shri S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for petitioners Shri K.J. Ghute Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos.2A to 2E, 3A, 4 and 5

¶36

Shri V.V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶37

CORAM: R.G. AVACHAT, J.

¶38

Date of reserving judgment : 29th August, 2019 Date of pronouncing judgment : 9th September, 2019

¶39

J U D G M E N T :

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, at Aurangabad in Revision Petitions, being Case No.10/B/92-L and Case No.11/B/92-L, dated 31/1/1992. By the impugned decision, both the revision petitions have been allowed, setting aside the decision of the Tenancy Appellate Court, and restoring the

¶41

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶42

(( 5 ))

¶43

decision of the Tenancy Court.

¶44

In a Civil Suit, being Regular Civil Suit No.21/1964 the issue of tenancy was framed and referred to the Tenancy Court, namely Additional Tahsildar, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The Tenancy Court answered the issue in the affirmative, holding the predecessor of the respondents herein to be the tenant in agricultural land, bearing Survey No.4, admeasuring 13.17 acres and Survey No.31, admeasuring 22.25 acres, situated at village Hatkarwadi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur. Both these lands initially formed a common Survey No.1.

¶45

The parties to this petition and their predecessors-in-

¶46

title did have a history of litigation in connection with the aforesaid lands. Reference thereto, however, is not necessary.

¶47

The original petitioner herein claims to be the landlord by virtue of succession, being son of the original landlord – Madhavrao Kale. The petitioner herein filed suit (Regular Civil Suit No.21/1964 against the respondents for possession of the aforesaid agricultural land. The suit is based on title. The respondents are alleged to have been in an unauthorised possession of the suit lands. Since the respondents raised an

¶48

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶49

(( 6 ))

¶50

issue of tenancy, the same came to be referred to the Tenancy Court, as stated above.

¶51

Shri Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the decisions given by the Tenancy Court and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ought not to have reappreciated the finding of fact recorded by the appellate authority, the Sub-Divisional Officer. The learned counsel took me through the evidence in the case to justify the decision given by Tenancy Appellate authorities. In view of learned counsel, the alleged lease deeds have not been proved in accordance with law. The lease deeds were executed on a plain paper. Those were unregistered documents. The copies of Pahani Patraks on record did not have a foundation since there is evidence to indicate that the entire record in the concerned revenue office was not available. Copies of Pahani Patraks on record are the doubtful documents. The predecessors-in-interest of the respondents unauthorisedly came into possession of the disputed lands. According to learned counsel, the decisions of the Tenancy Court and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are thus liable to be set aside.

¶52

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶53

(( 7 ))

¶54

The learned counsel representing respondent No.6 would, on the other hand, submit that, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot reappreciate factual matrix. The decision recorded by the Tenancy Court is based on sound reasons and the evidence on record. Since the decision of the appellate authority was cryptic, the same has been set aside by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. According to learned counsel, no interference with the impugned decisions/ orders is called for.

¶55

Admittedly, Madhavrao Kale was the original landowner (landlord). He had two wives – Sakharabai and Vithabai. Madhukarrao passed away in 1965. The petitioner is the son of Madhavrao and Vithabai. Sakharabai allegedly transferred the suit lands to one Dattu, by executing the gift deed. Dattu was the grandson of Sakharabai (her daughter's son). Learned counsel for the petitioners meant to say that, Sakharabai did not have authority to transfer the lands to Dattu. Whatever title the respondents claim to the disputed land has, thus, no legal base.

¶56

The respondents, however, claim that, possession by virtue of a tenancy dates back to the period of Madhavrao, original

¶57

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶58

(( 8 ))

¶59

landlord.

¶60

For just decision of this Writ Petition, it is necessary to have reference to some evidence in the case. Madhavrao was stated to have executed two lease deeds (Batai Patra) in favour of Megha and Khoba, one in the year 1345 Fasli and the other in the year 1351 Fasli. Both these documents are on plain papers (unstamped documents) and unregistered one. The Batai Patra of 1345 Fasli has been duly proved before the Tenancy Court. Tukaram, an attesting witness thereto, was examined. He stated that, his Batai Patra was written by one Vishwambhar Deo at the house of Madhavrao. Khoba, Megha and Madhavrao were also present at that time. Vishwambhar Deo was also examined. He stated to have scribed the Batai Patra executed in 1345 Fasli.

¶61

The other Batai Patra (executed in 1351 Fasli) could not be proved.

¶62

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rightly observed that, although these two documents could not be read in evidence as lease deeds, the documents, however, could be looked into to find nature of possession.

¶63

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶64

(( 9 ))

¶65

There is also other documentary evidence on record. The same is in the nature of Pahani Patraks pertaining to the period 1350 Fasli to 1356 Fasli. Those are the certified copies of public documents. The respondents are heirs/ legal representatives of deceased respondents No.1 to 3 and 7. The Pahani Patraks indicate, the predecessors-in-title of the respondents were in possession of the disputed lands. There is also on record a register of protected tenants, wherein the names of the predecessors-in-title of the respondents do appear. The receipts of payment of land revenue were produced on behalf of the respondents. Witness Vishwambhar Deo, who was examined on behalf of the landlord, in no uncertain terms admitted that, Megha and Khoba were cultivating the suit lands in the year 1950.

¶66

The Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short, the Act of 1950) came into force in 1950. Section 2(v) of the Act of 1950, tenant means an Asami Shikmi who holds land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be a tenant under the provisions of the Act of 1950. Megha and Khoba were in possession of the suit land as Asamis Shikmis since before coming into force the Act of 1950. Thus, they became the tenants, holding the lands on lease since they were put in possession

¶67

Writ Petition No.3058/1992

¶68

(( 10 ))

¶69

under two unregistered sale deeds executed by the landlord – Madhavrao.

¶70

The Tenancy Court, on appreciating the entire evidence in the case, rightly observed the respondents to be the tenants in the land. The appellate authority, without assigning any cogent reasons, set aside the decision of the Tenancy Court. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was, therefore, required to reappreciate the evidence in the case to uphold the decision given by the Tenancy Court. On examination of the record and proceedings, I do find that the findings recorded by the Tenancy Court are based on the evidence in the case, supported by cogent evidence. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rightly upheld the said decision. No case is made out for this Court to interfere with the impugned decision, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶71

In the result, the writ petition fails. The same stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

¶72

(R.G. AVACHAT) JUDGE

¶73

fmp/-

Gangaram Bandu Madhavrao Kale v. Hasli Megha Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangaram Bandu Madhavrao Kale v. Hasli Megha Pawar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayram S/O. Hanumant Bhujbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Gafar Shaikh Chandsab Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jankidevi Pandurang Baheti Vs Rajendra @ Jagdish Bajranglal Bhattad and Anr.

Aniket Radhesham Attal Vs the Sub Divisional Officer Beed and Others

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kauthal Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli

Nagnath Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli through It S Branch Manager, Kishor Kautikrao Kauthal Vs Yogesh Kumar, Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli