Shri Ramchandra Aaya Madavi Vs Tahsildar, Zhari Zhamni and Others

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:12463

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶6

WRI	T PETITI	ON NO.867 OF 2019
PETITIONER Original Applicant	:	Shri.Ramchandra Aaya Madavi Age:60, Occ: Farmer Residing at Village Dhabadi, Tal. Zhari Zhamni, Dist. Yavatmal. ... VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS Original Non-Applicants	1. 2.	Tahasildar, Taluka Zhari Zhamni, District Yavatmal Sub Divisional Officer, Kelapur, Dist. Yavatmal.
	3.	Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Civil Line, Nagpur, thr. Member.
	4.	The President Gaji Shahawali Dargha Committee Kayar, Railway Station Road, Taluka Wani, District Yavatmal

¶7

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mr. Robert Dabre, Advocate (through V.C.) a/w. Mr. J.K. Matale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. H.R. Dhumale, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3/State Mr. S.V. Purohit, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 12/11/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

2

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the respective parties at the stage of admission.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Robert Dabre, submits that the petitioner has filed an application before the Tahsildar for declaring him as a protected tenant. He submits that the petitioner is in possession over the property since 1930 and therefore, he filed an application before the Tahsildar in the year 2010 with a prayer that the petitioner be declared as a tenant over the property. Pursuant to the application filed by the petitioner, the Tahsildar issued a notice to the respondents and without considering the submissions of the petitioner, the Tahsildar passed an order on 25.11.2011 rejecting his application with an observation that the petitioner was not having any right to purchase the said property. Petitioner was even directed to handover the possession of the property within a period of 60 days to the respondents herein. The said order was assailed by petitioner by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer who vide its order dated 27.10.2016 dismissed the appeal.

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

3

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short “MRT”) and the MRT vide its order dated 07.07.2014, set-aside the order of Tahsildar dated 25.11.2011 in File No.6/59(13)/2009-10 and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. Thereafter, the Tahsildar vide its order dated 27.11.2015 dismissed the application by holding that the petitioners are not having any right to purchase the said property. The said order was assailed by filing an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer vide its order dated 27.10.2016 dismissed the appeal against which a revision was filed before the MRT and the MRT vide its order dated 31.07.2018 partly allowed the revision, setting-aside the operative order to the extent by which petitioner was directed to handover the possession within a period of 60 days and granted liberty to ther respondent to file an appropriate application for getting the possession.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Robert Dabre alongwith Mr. J.K. Matale, submits that in-fact, the petitioner’s application dated 18.05.2010 was for seeking declaration of the tenancy but the core aspect of tenancy was neither considered nor decided. He would submit that as the petitioner was already a tenant occupying the

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

4

said agricultural land, therefore, in view of Section 6(1) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (for short “the Act, 1958”) the petitioner has acquired deemed tenancy. He would submit that both the authorities in second round of litigation failed to consider this aspect and therefore, prayed to allow the present petition. When the matter was remanded back, it was expected on the part of the Tahsildar to consider the matter afresh after considering the conclusions recorded by learned MRT and after granting opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. But in the second round of litigation the Tahsildar did not consider this, therefore, on this ground also he submits that the order passed by the MRT is not reasoned one as no proper findings were recorded.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 Mr. S.V. Purohit and learned AGP for respondent/State Mr. H.R. Dhumale, submit that this is a second round of litigation, as this property was originally belonged to one Abdul Rauf Abdul Razzak and then it was purchased by Mohd. Ibrahim and Sheikh Kasam by way of Registered Sale Deed in the year 1958. The propery was later gifted to Gaji Shahawali Dargha, therefore, on the basis of registered Gift Deed, the respondent became the owner of the property. From 1977-78 to 2006-

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

5

07 and from 2009-10 entries in the 7/12 extract are recorded in the name of petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 25.11.2011, wherein, there is a reference to the application filed by the petitioner on 29.01.2010. The first paragraph of the order dated 25.11.2011 passed by Tahsildar is reproduced as follows:-

¶33

“ izLrqr izdj.k vtZnkj Jh- jkepanz v;;k eMkoh ;kauh fn- 29@1@2010 ps fouarh vtkZo#u lq# dj.;kr vkys- R;kauh R;kaps fouarh vtkZe/;s vls ueqns dsys vkgs dh] ekStk nkHkkMh fLFkr ‘ksr Hkqekiu dz- 12 ( tquk lOgsZ ua94 ) {ks=- 9 gs- 61 vkj- vkdkj #- 2&25 Hkks- oxZ&1 gh ‘ksrtehu ek>s iutksck e;;r fHke lqikjh dksyke ;kauh lu 1951 rs 1955 i;Zar oghrh dsY;kus rs ‘ksrtehuh e/;s dqG Eg.kwu uksanY;k xsys rs R;kaps eR;wuarj lnj ‘ksrtehuhph oghrh gh ek>s oMhy v;~;k lq&;k eMkoh ;kauh dsyh- ek>~;k oMhykP;k eR;wuarj eh Lor% lnjgq ‘ksr tehuhph vktrkxk;r oghrh djhr vkgs- vkt jksth lnj vtkZrhy ueqn pk mrkjk ‘ksr tehuhoj ek>kp rkck o oghrh vkgs- ek>;k ukokus 7@12 lq/nk lnj ‘ksrkpk vkgs- lu 1955 e/;s ek>k iutksck e;;r fHkek ;kauh ‘ksrh oghrh dsY;k cnny laj{khr dqGkpk gDd izkIr >kY;kph gDd uksan.kh e/;s r’kh uksan vkgs- lnj vtkZrhy ‘ksrkps eqG ekyd gs f’kojk;k d`”.k;;k xax’ksV~Vhokj dkseVh gs vlqu ekStk nkHkkMh rk- >jhtke.kh ;sFkhy xV ua12 ( tquk lOgsZ ua- 94 ) {ks=QG 9 gs- 61 vkj- vkdkj #- 2&25 HkksoxZ&1 lnj ‘ksrkph eqacbZ dqG ofgokV dk;|kuqlkj 48 % iVkus jDde Hk#u vtZnkjkl [kjsnhph ijokuxh o ekydh gDd iznku djkok v’kh ‘ksoVh fouarh dsyh vkgs- ”

¶34

He further submits that as the case of the petitioner was that he was already declared as protected tenant, the proceedings were

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

6

instituted only for fixing the prices and the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer in both the rounds of litigation have and held that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the land and therefore, he would submit that to declare the protected tenant, he has to file an application within a period of one year as per Section 43 of the Act, 1958. Therefore, he submits that all the authorities have considered that the petitioner was never declared as a protected tenant and the petitioner is illegally in possession without there being authorization under law, therefore, pursuant to the Order dated 31.07.2011 passed by the MRT respondent already filed an application for getting the possession and even the Tahsildar has also passed an order and directing the petitioner to handover the possession to the respondent, but because of the pendency of the present petition the possession was not handed over to the respondents.

¶40

I have considered the rival submissions made by both the counsels and after going through the record, it reveals that the application was filed by the present petitioner on 29.01.2010 contending therein that the petitioner was declared as a protected tenant but the entire land record speaks contrary to his contention. The petitioner failed to submit any record about the tenancy. As no record Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

7

was produced before Tahsildar regarding him being a protected tenant, Tahsildar has rightly rejected the application vide its Order dated 25.11.2011, the same was also confirmed by Sub-Divisional Officer and MRT in both the rounds of litigations.

¶45

Though the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the application dated 18.05.2010 was for declaration of tenancy in favour of the petitioner, all the authorities below have recorded identical findings in both the rounds of litigations that the petitioner was not entitled to purchase the land and he had not produced any documents for proving that he is a protected tenant. When it was brought to the notice of learned counsel for the petitioner that application was filed on 29.01.2010, he submits that he had already withdrawn that application i.e. application dated 29.01.2010 and only argues the petition on the basis of application dated 18.05.2010, thereby, praying that the petitioner be declared a protected tenant. These submissions are made only for the sake of argument. As it is not the case of the petitioner that application filed on 29.01.2010 was withdrawn during the original proceeding. Rather, it is the specific case of the petitioner that he was declared as a protected tenant and therefore, he had filed an application for fixing prices for purchasing the same.

Pvf

WP-867-2019 J.odt

Judgment

8