Vitthal S/O Shama Ramteke and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Vitthal S/O Shama Ramteke and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order dated 21/05/2024 in Tenancy Revision No.REV/TNC/AMR-28/2019, directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide respondent No.3-Trust's application for exemption under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act on its merits despite the earlier rejection of a similar application on procedural grounds, calls for interference.

Court's answer

Since the earlier exemption application was rejected only on the ground of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure and there was no adjudication on merits in the first round, that rejection does not operate as res judicata against a subsequent application for the same purpose.

Ratio / Principle

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order directing the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the exemption application on its merits is perfectly in accordance with law and warrants no interference by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioners challenged the order dated 21/05/2024 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No.REV/TNC/AMR-28/2019, by which the Tribunal directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide respondent No.3-Trust's application for exemption from the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 on its merits. Held: the Trust's earlier application had been rejected only on the ground that it was not filed in accordance with Rule 62 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 read with Section 129 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, and not on merits; there being no adjudication on merits in the first round, that rejection does not operate as res judicata, and the Sub Divisional Officer therefore could not reject the subsequent application on that ground. The Tribunal's order is perfectly in accordance with law and warrants no interference. (Nagpur Bench; Rohit W. Joshi, J.; decision dated 08/06/2026.)

WP 3160 of 2026.odt

1

2026:BHC-NAG:7419

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

WRIT PETITION NO.3160/2026

Vitthal S/o Shama Ramteke and others

...Versus…

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary and others

- - - - --- - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - ----- ------------ - Mr. C.A. Babrekar, Advocate for petitioners Mrs. Mrunal Naik, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2

CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 08/06/2026

The present petition takes exception to order dated 21/05/2024, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No.REV/TNC/AMR-28/2019, whereby the learned Tribunal has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to decide the application filed by the respondent No.3Trust for seeking exemption from applicability of provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short hereinafter referred to as “Maharashtra Tenancy Act”) on its merits.

It is not in dispute that on an earlier occasion, the respondent No.3-Trust had filed application, which was rejected on the ground that it was not filed in accordance with Rule 62 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 read with Section 129 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act.

The learned Tribunal has found that since earlier application was not decided on merits, subsequent application

WP 3160 of 2026.odt 2

for the same purpose could not be rejected on the ground of res judicata, as has been done by the learned Sub Divisional Officer while rejecting the application.

Having perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal, this Court finds that the said order is perfectly in accordance with law. The application seeking exemption was not decided on merits, but was rejected on the ground that it was not filed in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Since there is no adjudication on merits in the first round, the order will obviously not operate as res judicata. No interference is warranted with the impugned order. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

(ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.)

Wadkar

Signed by: S.S. Wadkar (SSW) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 08/06/2026 19:34:52