Disposed¶14

Pandurang Trimbak Athavale Throu. Their Poa Manoj Sudhakar Deshpande and Ors. v. Devidas Baktavarmal Bhansali and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jan 2026WP/12642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 88C certificate; certified landlord below economic holding; Section 33B termination of tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation; three-month limitation; inheritability and abatement of tenancy-termination right; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948; Supreme Court order upholding 88C certificate; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal revision; Collector's appellate order granting possession; 2002 revival application undecided; sale of land defeating personal-cultivation claim; writ discretion; transferee as constituted attorney conducting proceedings; delay and failure to seek mandamus.

What did the court decide?

None; the Petitions were finally disposed of without any interference with the Impugned Order. ¶14

Pandurang Trimbak Athavale Throu. Their Poa Manoj Sudhakar Deshpande and Ors. vs Devidas Baktavarmal Bhansali and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Petitions were finally disposed of without any interference with the Impugned Order.

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Order dated November 30, 2023 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, allowing the tenants' revision and reversing the Collector's order, is liable to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

The prayer to quash and set aside the MRT's Impugned Order is rejected; the findings of the MRT in the Impugned Order do not call for interference.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

By unequivocally selling all their right, title and interest in the Subject Land in 2013 (the Athavales selling again in 2017), the Petitioners lost the foundational ingredient of Section 33B, namely the requirement of personal cultivation, making it impossible for them to claim they are desirous of personally cultivating the land.

¶11(K)

Key takeaways

Even if the three-month timeframe in Section 33B is read as a directory rather than mandatory deadline, the Petitioners pursued Section 33B proceedings on their own only in July 2017, several years after their 2013 sale of the land.ratio¶11(J)
The question whether the desire for personal cultivation of a landlord certified under Section 88C can be inherited along with the land, or dies with the original landlord, did not need to be answered, because the Petitioners' 2013 sale of the land brought their desire for personal cultivation to an end.obiter¶11(H)
As a facet of the discretion of a Writ Court, since the party has unequivocally sold the land and the basis of entitlement to seek personal cultivation under Section 33B has come to an end, there is no basis for the writ court to interfere with the Impugned Order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.; decision dated April 2, 2026) disposed of, without interference, writ petitions challenging an order dated November 30, 2023 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowing the tenants' revision and reversing the Collector's order that had held the Petitioners — heirs of the two sisters of Sadashiv Datar, holder of a Section 88C certificate (holding below economic holding) under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, upheld by the Supreme Court's order dated October 7, 1985 — entitled to be landowners. Held: (i) the Petitioners sold all their right, title and interest in the land in 2013 (the Athavales selling again in 2017 to a third party who conducts these proceedings as constituted attorney), so the foundational requirement of bona fide personal cultivation under Section 33B has evaporated; (ii) even reading the three-month limitation in Section 33B as directory, the Petitioners moved under Section 33B only in July 2017; (iii) whether the desire for personal cultivation is inheritable or dies with the certified landlord was expressly left unanswered; (iv) neither the 2002 application by the previous generation to continue Datar's 1990 Section 33B proceedings nor any mandamus was pursued. No case for interference under Article 226-type writ discretion was made out; petitions disposed of without interference.

¶1

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by CHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date: 2026.04.10 18:39:04 +0530

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6128 OF 2024

¶5

Vinayak Vasudev Tilak Decd. …Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra Thr. Tahsildar And Ors. …Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 12642 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 10666 OF 2024 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12671 OF 2024

¶10

Mr. Narayan G. Rokade a/w Mrunmai K. Rokade, Siddharth Ghodke, Swapnil Kalokhe, Ankita Ugalmugale, Tribhuvan Sharma, Ramchandra Wagh, for the Petitioner in WP/6128/2024 with WP/12671/2024.

¶11

Adv. S. G. Karandikar a/w Shashank Mangle, Harshad Sathe, Saurabh Butala, Aishwarya Hinge, Manvi Sharma, Shubham Gangan, Siddesh Bane and Pranil Vichare, for the Respondent Nos.3, and 11 to 14 in WP/6128/2024 and for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6 in WP/12642/2024.

¶12

Ms. Sulbha Chipade , Addl. G. P. for the State, in WP/1267/2024.

¶13

Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan , Addl. G .P. for the State in WP/6128/2024.

¶14

Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale , Addl. G .P. for the State in WP/10666/204.

¶15

Ms. S. R. Crasto , Addl. G .P. for the State in WP/12642/2024

¶16

Page 1 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶17

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶18

Chaitanya

¶19

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶20

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : APRIL 2, 2026

¶21

Oral Judgement:

¶22

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith by consent of the parties, and is taken up for final hearing.

¶23

Context and Factual Background:

¶24

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated November 30, 2023, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ( “MRT” ), which allowed a revision sought by the Respondents, reversing an order of the Collector, which had held the Petitioners to be entitled to be landowners of the property in question (“ Subject Property ”).

¶25

The factual matrix falls in a rather narrow compass. In 1958, one Mr. Sadashiv Datar ( “Datar” ) was originally granted a certificate as a certified landlord with holding of land of a size below economic holding under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ( “the Act” ). This certificate was the subject matter of litigation. Eventually, the Supreme Court, by an order dated October 7, 1985 (“ SC Order ”) dismissed a Special Leave Petition and upheld the grant of the 88C Certificate in favour of Datar.

¶26

Page 2 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶27

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶28

Chaitanya

¶29

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶30

Thereafter, Datar was directed to initiate proceedings under Section 33B of the Act, which entitles a landlord holding an 88C Certificate, to seek termination of tenancy on the premise of bona fide need of the land for personal cultivation. Under Section 33B, such an application is required to be filed within three months from the receipt of the 88C Certificate. Datar filed proceedings under Section 33B of the Act in 1990. After the 88C Certificate was confirmed with the passing of the SC Order, the Tahsildar had closed the Section 88C proceedings on February 13, 1989.

¶31

Datar expired on August 17, 1991. He had no immediate family, apart from his two sisters, namely, Lilabai Tilak (“ Lilabai ”), who passed away on August 22, 1991, and Kamlabai Athavale ( “Kamlabai” ), who passed away on February 22, 2001.

¶32

The heirs of Lilabai (“ Tilaks ”) and the heirs of Kamlabai (“ Athavales ”) are the ones in whose name the captioned proceedings are being prosecuted today. The Petitioners claim to have an interest in the Subject Property, and claim a statutory entitlement to pursue proceedings under Sections 33B of the Act that had been initiated by Datar way back in 1990. The Petitioners had filed proceedings under Section 33B of the Act on July 4, 2017, which were rejected, against

¶33

Page 3 of 10 April 2, 2026 This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶34

Chaitanya

¶35

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶36

which they filed an Appeal in 2019, which also came to be rejected by the Tahsildar and the Agricultural Land Tribunal, on the premise that being heirs of the late Datar, the right to terminate the tenancy could not be inherited by them, and that right, based on the personal requirement of Datar to cultivate the land, abated upon the demise of Datar.

¶37

Thereafter, the Collector, who considered a further appeal, set aside that order, granting possession of the Subject Land to the Petitioners on the premise that once the SC Order upheld the grant of the 88C Certificate, the tenancy rights of the tenant had came to an end. It is a revision of this order sought by the tenants that led to the Impugned Order being passed.

¶38

In 2002, the offspring of Kamlabai and Lilabai i.e. the generation before the Petitioners, had moved an application, purportedly in the proceedings that had been filed by Datar in 1990, under Section 33B of the Act (“ 1990 Application ”). They had sought to continue the said proceedings on the premise that they had inherited the right to do so. Whether proceedings under Section 33B would abate upon the death of Datar or whether they could be revived subsequently in this manner, is a question that has remained at large, since the said

¶39

Page 4 of 10 April 2, 2026 This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026. Chaitanya

¶40

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶41

application seeking to continue the old proceedings has not been dealt with till date.

¶42

According to the Petitioners, had their parents’ application to revive and continue the 1990 Application been considered in time, they could have been held to be landlords, with an entitlement to terminate the tenancy under Section 33B of the Act, considering that it was an entitlement pursuant to the 88C Certificate.

¶43

Analysis and Findings:

¶44

It is against this backdrop that the Learned Advocates for the parties have been heard at some length, and with their assistance, the contents of the record have been gone into.

¶45

I am unable to accept the prayer in the Petition seeking to quash and set aside the Impugned Order passed by the MRT for the following reasons :-

¶46

A] The scheme of the interplay between Section 88C and Section 33B of the Act is apparent from a plain reading of the provisions. Section 88C excludes the application of the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R of the Act, but subject to the provisions of Section 33A, 33B and 33C of the Act;

¶47

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶48

Page 5 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶49

Chaitanya

¶50

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶51

B] Section 33B of the Act enables a landlord with an 88C Certificate to seek termination of the agricultural tenancy on the premise that the landlord requires such land for bona fide personal cultivation. Such an application had indeed been preferred by Datar in 1990. However, he passed away in 1991. His siblings Kamlabai and Lilabai, through whom the Petitioners claim, passed away in 1991 and 2001, respectively;

¶52

C] The Petitioners filed the application to continue Datar’s Section 33B Application in July 2002. The Petitioners neither heard from the State about this application nor did they pursue their perceived entitlement to continue Datar’s Section 33B Application by seeking a writ of mandamus or even by way of general follow up;

¶53

D] While the Petitioners contend that their parents had filed an application in July 2002 to revive and continue with Datar’s Section 33B Application without abatement, and nobody had ruled upon it, it is noteworthy that even those applicants had passed away, and it is not the Petitioners’ case that they too filed an application to revive and continue their parents’ application

¶54

Page 6 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶55

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶56

Chaitanya

¶57

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶58

without abatement, so that they could pursue that application to continue Datar’s Section 33B Application without abatement;

¶59

E] If the Petitioners believe that they had an interest flowing from the pendency of the application made by their parents in July 2002, there is nothing on record to indicate that those applicants or these Petitioners pursued any of their rights – for example, by filing a writ of mandamus to direct that such application be considered;

¶60

F] That apart, Section 33B of the Act, on the face of it, indicates that the landlord would need to demonstrate his own need for personal cultivation of the land, and if such requirement is demonstrated, the termination under Section 33B would follow. Datar passed away in 1991, and his personal need for cultivation went away. It is through an application filed by the offspring of Datar’s sisters that continuation of Datar’s 33B Application was sought;

¶61

G] The application by the Petitioners themselves under Section 33B is sought to be relied upon to continue a flow of entitlement of the Petitioners and the pendency of the 2002 Application filed by them.

¶62

Page 7 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶63

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶64

Chaitanya

¶65

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶66

H] In my opinion, the question of whether the desire for personal cultivation by a landlord certified under Section 88C (as being of a size below economic holding) can be inherited along with the land, or whether the desire to cultivate the land dies with the original landlord who had such desire does not even have to be answered in this case because of a material and significant development in 2013. The Petitioners themselves sold all their right, title and interest in the Subject Land on an “as is where is” basis to third parties. With it, their desire for “personal cultivation” came to an end;

¶67

I] Indeed, the Petitioners had disputes with the third parties on the transaction to sell the Subject Land. In a subsequent transaction in 2017, the Athavales sold their interest in the Subject Land yet again to another third party. In fact, while these proceedings have been filed and are being pursued in the name of the Athavales, it is such third party transferee who is the constituted attorney of the Athavales who is in conduct of the proceedings;

¶68

J] Section 33B of the Act entails a specific timeframe within which the landlord may initiate proceedings for termination of the

¶69

Page 8 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶70

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶71

Chaitanya

¶72

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶73

tenancy – three months from the certification under Section 88C. Even if one were to read the three-month deadline as a directory deadline and not a mandatory deadline, the time by which the Petitioners purported to pursue 33B proceedings on their own was several years later – in July 2017. However, four years before that (in 2013), they had sold their right, title and interest to the Subject Land to a third party. In 2017, the Athavales sold it to another third party, who is now conducting these proceedings, in the Athavales’ name;

¶74

K] The Petitioners themselves having unequivocally sold the land on an as-is-where-is basis in 2013, the foundational ingredient of Section 33B of the Act i.e. the requirement for personal cultivation, has evaporated. Even if one were to consider the right to require the land for personal cultivation under Section 33B as an inheritable right, it would necessarily follow that the Petitioners would need to demonstrate their own bona fide requirement for personal cultivation. Having unequivocally sold the land, it would be impossible for the Petitioners to claim that they are desirous of personal cultivation of the Subject Land.

¶75

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶76

Page 9 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶77

Chaitanya

¶78

909-J-(2)-WP-6128-2024+(1).doc

¶79

It is in these circumstances, that I am satisfied that the findings of the MRT in the Impugned Order, do not call for interference. No case has been made out to demonstrate a bona fide requirement being pursued by the Petitioners for any interference to be made. The Subject Land is amidst a residential cluster and the land would be used for construction. The Petitioners have filed the Writ Petitions, but the real pursuit of Athavales’ petition is by the transferee.

¶80

As a facet of the discretion of a Writ Court, since the party has unequivocally sold the land, the basis of entitlement to seek personal cultivation of the land under Section 33B of the Act having come to an end, there is no basis for the writ court to interfere with the Impugned Order.

¶81

Therefore, the Petitions are finally disposed of without any interference.

¶82

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

¶83

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶84

Page 10 of 10 April 2, 2026

¶85

This Judgement is modified/corrected pursuant to the speaking to the minute of order dated 10/04/2026.

¶86

Chaitanya

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowing the revision sought by the Respondent tenants and reversing the Collector's order that had held the Petitioners entitled to be landowners of the Subject Property.¶2
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) · November 30, 2023
Prior proceeding
In 1958, Sadashiv Datar was granted a certificate as a certified landlord with holding below economic holding under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.¶3
Prior proceeding
The 88C Certificate was upheld by the Supreme Court, which on October 7, 1985 dismissed a Special Leave Petition ('SC Order').¶3
Prior proceeding
Datar initiated proceedings under Section 33B of the Act in 1990 seeking termination of tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation.¶4
Prior proceeding
After confirmation of the 88C Certificate by the SC Order, the Tahsildar closed the Section 88C proceedings on February 13, 1989.¶4
Prior proceeding
Datar died on August 17, 1991, leaving no immediate family apart from his two sisters.¶5
Prior proceeding
His sisters Lilabai Tilak and Kamlabai Athavale died on August 22, 1991 and February 22, 2001 respectively; their heirs (Tilaks and Athavales) prosecute the present proceedings.¶5
Prior proceeding
The Petitioners filed their own proceedings under Section 33B on July 4, 2017, which were rejected.¶6
Prior proceeding
Their 2019 appeal was rejected by the Tahsildar and the Agricultural Land Tribunal on the premise that the right to terminate tenancy based on Datar's personal requirement was not inheritable and abated on Datar's demise.¶6
Prior proceeding
In a further appeal, the Collector set aside that order and granted possession of the Subject Land to the Petitioners, holding that the SC Order had ended the tenant's tenancy rights; the tenants' revision of that order led to the Impugned Order.¶7
Prior proceeding
In 2002, the offspring of Kamlabai and Lilabai moved an application purportedly in Datar's 1990 Section 33B proceedings seeking to continue them on the premise of inheritance.¶8
Prior proceeding
That 2002 application to continue the old proceedings has not been dealt with till date.¶8

Pandurang Trimbak Athavale Throu. Their Poa Manoj Sudhakar Deshpande and Ors. v. Devidas Baktavarmal Bhansali and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Trimbak Athavale Throu. Their Poa Manoj Sudhakar Deshpande and Ors. v. Devidas Baktavarmal Bhansali and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kec International Ltd. vs Export-Import Bank of India and 2 Ors.

Bairagra Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs Encore Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.

Shiv Hari Kripa Co. Operative Housing Soc Thr Its Chief Promoter and Anr. vs Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Heritage Lifestyles and Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Madhugiri Co-operative Housing Society Limited

Tata Capital Limited vs Six Seasons Concretex Private Limited

Tata Capital Limited vs Shree Traders