Allowed

Anant Chander Patil v. Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust through Trustees

Bombay HC9 Jan 2024WP/170/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bombay High Court quashed an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that set aside a declaration of tenancy under Section 70B of the BTLA. The court held the Tribunal failed to consider merits and remanded proceedings to the Tahasildar for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of MRT in Revision Applications 225 and 226 of 2019 is quashed; proceedings remanded to Tahasildar, Thane for fresh decision.

Anant Chander Patil Vs Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

50-WP-170-20 with wp-171-20.doc

¶2

SA Pathan

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.170 OF 2020

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.171 OF 2020

¶7

SHABNOORAYUBPATHAN Digitallysigned bySHABNOORAYUBPATHANDate:2024.01.0917:01:16+0530

¶8

Anand Chander Patil … Petitioner V/s. Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust Through Trustees … Respondent

¶9

Mr. Shrishailya Sadashiv Deshmukh, for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. S. G. Karandikar a/w Mr. Abhijit B. Kadam i/by Ms. Sonali Ganesh Sase, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED : JANUARY 9, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

The writ petitions arises out of proceedings under Section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The ALT and Appellate Authority declared the petitioner to be tenant in the property in dispute. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short ‘MRT’) by the impugned order allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the ALT and Appellate Authority.

¶15

On perusal of paragraph 5 of the judgment passed by the Revisional Authority, it appears that both the parties requested for

¶16

¶17

50-WP-170-20 with wp-171-20.doc

¶18

remanding the proceedings back to the ALT/Tahasildar.

¶19

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that reason for setting aside the order appears to be non-application of mind on the part of authorities below, if that be so the proper course for Revisional Authority was to remand the proceedings back to ALT/Tahasildar for decision afresh.

¶20

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Tribunal has not considered merits of the matter in its proper perspective. Therefore, it would be in the interest of justice that the order of MRT is set aside not parties are reverted back to the Tahasildar for decision afresh on the issue of proceedings under Section 70B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in accordance with law. Hence, following order:

¶21

i) The impugned order passed by MRT in Revision Application No.225 of 2019 and 226 of 2019 are quashed and set aside.

¶22

ii) Both the proceedings be remanded back to Tahasildar, Thane for decision afresh.

¶23

iii) The Tahasildar, Thane shall decide the proceedings uninfluenced by orders passed by the authorities below, MRT or present order.

¶24

Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No costs.

¶25

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶26

Anant Chander Patil v. Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust through Trustees

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Chander Patil v. Ratanshi Premji Charitable Trust through Trustees

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

Neelkamal Realtors Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Controller of Stamps and Ors.

Dinkar Jaywant Kolpe Vs the President Punyashlyok Ahilyadevi Holkar Shikshan Sanstha and Ors.

Jayashri Shrish Chaubal Vs Savalaram Kalu Tamhane Since Decd Thr His Legal Heirs and Ors.

Sai Prasad Chs Ltd. (through Chairmanmr. Ashok S Salvi) vs Bhupendra Madhukar Sawant and Anr.

Radhakrishna Properties Private Limited vs District Deputy Registrar- Co-Op Mumbai and Ors.

Shankar Mahadeo Surve Vs Shri. Malaidevi Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Ors.