Shri. Balu Sawala Mohite Shingmode and Ors. Vs Shri. Bajrang Dhondi Daphale and Ors.

¶1

202-wp-6216-1996.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6216 OF 1996

¶5

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶6

Digitally signed by NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.04.05 17:19:10 +0530

¶7

Balu Sawala Mohite @ Shingmode and
Ors.… Petitioners

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Bajrang Dhondi Daphale and Ors.… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ramchandra N. Kachave, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Milind Deshmukh, for Respondent No.1.

¶11

CORAM:AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶12

DATED:APRIL 5, 2024

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.The petitioners are challenging application and order passed
by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 13th November 1996
allowing revision filed by respondents setting aside orders passed
under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
Act, 1948 (“the Act” for short) by Tahsildar and Sub-divisional
Officer mainly on the ground that in the proceedings initiated in
the year 1964 under the provisions of 32-G of the Act. It was held
that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the
landlady and the predecessor of the petitioners. The facts giving
rise to the present writ petition are as under:

¶15

2.The predecessor of petitioners Pandurang Mohite, on 13th
October 1985 under Section 32-G of the Act shown his willingness

¶16

202-wp-6216-1996.doc

¶17

to purchase the land in question. According to him, he was tenant
on Tiller’s day, i.e. 1st April 1957 and, therefore, the proceedings
for purchase were postponed.The landlady died on 2nd October
1985. Therefore, the predecessor of petitioners applied for
purchase of land as no notice of her death was issued to the tenant
nor the notice of termination of tenancy was issued.

¶18

3.The Additional Tahsildar by order dated 15th September
1987 declared predecessor of the petitioners as the tenant and
issued a direction for issuance of certificate under Section 32-M of
the Act.

¶19

4.The respondents challenged the order of Tahsildar before the
Sub-divisional Officer. The Sub-divisional Officer in Appeal No.56
of 1987 confirmed the decision of Tahsildar by order dated 18th
January 1988.

¶20

5.The respondent No.1, challenged the order of Sub-divisional
Officer by filing revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The Revenue Tribunal based on communication dated 19th
February 1977issued by Tahsildar to respondent No.1 indicating
that in a proceeding in Case No.167 decided on 4th December
1964, held that there was no relationship between landlady
Bakulabai Daphale and Tenant Pandurang Mohite. Based on this
document the Revenue Tribunal recorded a finding that in absence
of relationship of landlord and tenant, purchase price under
Section 32-G of the Act could not have been fixed and, therefore,
the Revenue Tribunal set aside the orders passed by Agricultural
Land Tribunal (A.L.T.) and Sub-divisional Officer. The petitioners

¶21

202-wp-6216-1996.doc

¶22

have, therefore challenged the order of Tribunal by present writ
petition.

¶23

6.Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that no notice
of proceeding of 1964 was issued either to the petitioners or their
predecessor in title. They are unaware of such decision. According
to him, no proceedings were taken place in the year 1964.

¶24

7.Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 invited
my attention to the communication dated 19th February 1977
which contains a recital that in a proceedings under Section 32-G
in Case No.167 decided on 4th December 1964. It was held that
there was no relationship between landlady Bakulabai Daphale
and predecessor of the petitioners.

¶25

8.On perusal of the record, it appears that the communication
dated 19th February 1977 refers to Survey No.30/1 indicating that
Bakulabai Daphale was landlady and predecessor of petitioners
was tenant. It also contains a recital that in proceedings under
Section 32-G bearing Case No.167 decided on 4th December 1964.
It was communicated that there was no relationship of landlord
and tenant i.e. between Bakulabai Daphale and predecessor of the
petitioners. Therefore, there was no question of purchase of land
in the name of tenant.

¶26

9.In absence of any other material on behalf of the petitioners
to indicate that such proceedings was not in existence. The
communication issued by Competent Authority in the year 1977
i.e. 7 years before the initiation of proceedings under Section 32-G
of the Act has rightly been relied upon by the Revenue Tribunal.

¶27

202-wp-6216-1996.doc

¶28

10. Therefore, in my opinion, once it is established that in the
earlier round of litigation proceedings under Section 32-G of the
Act resulted in adjudication of status of landlord and tenant
declaring absence of relationship of landlord and tenant, fresh
proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act could not have been
initiated. Hence, the impugned order does not suffers from any
legal infirmity.

¶29

11. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs.

¶30

12. Rule stands discharged.

¶31

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Shri. Balu Sawala Mohite Shingmode and Ors. v. Shri. Bajrang Dhondi Daphale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Balu Sawala Mohite Shingmode and Ors. v. Shri. Bajrang Dhondi Daphale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Pengun Kids C/O New Horizon Public School Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

New Horizon Public School Throu. Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Krystal Integrated Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Employees Provident Fund Orgination and Anr.

Anandrao Govindrao Pawar Vs State of Mharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Nilgiriwala Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Blue Hills Co-Op.Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Bhagirthibai Vasantrao Lende Vs Rajendra Gulabrao Jadhav and Ors.