Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from interwoven proceedings under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The original landlady Mariyambi sought recovery of possession of survey Nos. 243 and 248 from three joint tenants, Imam Saheb, Mehtaab and Govind Sul, before the Tahsildar. In 1959, the Tahsildar partly allowed the application, restoring part of the land to Mariyambi while leaving other portions with the tenants. Subsequent appeals and orders led to mutual consent arrangements, oral gifts, and transfers. The present petitioner purchased survey No. 243 from Abdul Hamid, to whom Mariyambi had gifted the land. The tenants later filed an application under Section 46 of the Act alleging breach of conditions, which was dismissed as time-barred but eventually remanded and decided by revenue authorities, culminating in an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 03.03.1998. That order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court framed three points: (i) limitation under Section 32; (ii) exclusion due to municipal limits under Section 102; and (iii) abatement as to legal representatives of deceased tenant Govind Sul. The High Court decided the writ petition on 13.08.2010. The petitioner's Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as not maintainable, and the Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in SLP No. 15136 of 2020 granted liberty to file a review before the single judge, leading to the present review application. The review applicant's senior advocate argued that point No. 3 regarding abatement was framed but not answered, constituting error apparent on face of record. The review was restricted to ground D. The High Court heard the matter on 07.03.2025 and reserved judgment, pronouncing on 09.06.2025, but the provided text ends during submissions without the final operative order. The central legal issue is whether failure to decide a framed point amounts to reviewable error, and whether the earlier judgment should be reviewed. The preceding procedural history shows a prolonged litigation across revenue authorities, High Court, and Supreme Court, with the Supreme Court ultimately granting a limited liberty to approach the single judge for review on merits, which was exercised through this application.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Abatement - Death of joint tenant - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Section 46 - The High Court in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 framed point No.3 whether the application under Section 46 abated as far as legal representatives of tenant Govind Sul; the review applicant contended that this point was not decided, which was crucial and an error apparent on face of record. (Paras 3,6)
B) Tenancy Law - Limitation - Bar of limitation under Section 32 - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Sections 46, 32 - Original application under Section 46 was dismissed as time-barred on 30.11.1973, and the High Court had framed point No.1 to decide whether limitation applied; this issue was part of the earlier writ adjudication. (Paras 2(vii)-(viii),3)
C) Tenancy Law - Applicability - Exclusion of municipal limits - Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, Section 102 - The High Court considered whether land was within Latur municipal limits before the tenants' application, which would exclude the Act's application; the writ petitioner had raised this as point No.2. (Paras 3-4)
D) Constitutional Law - Review Jurisdiction - Error apparent on face of record - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226, 227 - The review application was filed after Supreme Court granted liberty to approach the single judge for review on merits; the core question was whether non-adjudication of point No.3 constituted error apparent, and the High Court reserved judgment on 07.03.2025. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 failed to decide point No. 3 regarding abatement of application under Section 46 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act due to death of joint tenant Govind Sul, and whether such failure constituted error apparent on face of record warranting review.
Law Points
- Error apparent on face of record
- Abatement of joint tenancy application
- Limitation under Hyderabad Tenancy Act
- Municipal limits exclusion
- Writ jurisdiction under Constitution
- Review jurisdiction after Supreme Court liberty
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (06) 3
Review Application No. 114 of 2022 in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 with Civil Application No. 10347 of 2024 in Review Application No. 114 of 2022 with Civil Application No. 683 of 2023 in Review Application No. 114 of 2022
Senior Advocate Mr. V.D. Sapkal i/b. Advocate Mr. D.R. Bhadekar for applicant; Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Deshmukh i/b. Advocate Mr. Devang Deshmukh for Respondent no. 2 (I) to (VIII), 3 to 5 and 6A; Senior Advocate Mr. P.V. Mandlik i/b. Advocate Mr. V.D. Gunale for Respondent nos. 1 to 8, 9A, 9C, 9D; Advocate Mr. B.R. Kedar for Respondent No. 9 (1) (D); Senior Advocate Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar i/b. Advocate Mr. R.L. Kute for applicant in CA/683/2023; Advocate Mr. A.N. Nagargoje, for applicant in CA/10347/2024
Gaurishankar S/o. Mohanlal Vyas (Since deceased through L.R.) Purushottam S/o. Mohanlal Vyas
Imamsaheb S/o. Ismail Saheb (since deceased through L.Rs.) & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review application filed before High Court seeking review of its earlier judgment in writ petition which challenged orders under Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner/review applicant sought review of judgment dated 13.08.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 on ground that point No. 3 regarding abatement was framed but not decided, constituting error apparent on face of record.
Filing Reason
High Court failed to record finding on abatement point, which was crucial to subsequent proceedings; petitioner obtained liberty from Supreme Court to file review before single judge.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar order dated 06.11.1959 partly allowed recovery; Collector order dated 04.06.1963 modified; MRT order dated 03.03.1998 dismissed revision; High Court Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 decided 13.08.2010; LPA No. 304 of 2010 dismissed 04.02.2019; SLP No. 1195 of 2019 dismissed 02.07.2019; Civil Application No. 2250 of 2020 dismissed 20.02.2020; SLP No. 15136 of 2020 dismissed with liberty to file review before single judge.
Issues
Whether the tenants' application under Section 46 of HT&AL Act was barred by limitation in view of Section 32 of HT&AL Act?
Whether the land was included in Municipal limits of Latur prior to tenants' application under Section 46, thereby attracting Section 102 of HT&AL Act?
Whether the application under Section 46 abated as far as legal representatives of tenant Govind Sule are concerned?
Whether failure to decide point No. 3 amounts to error apparent on face of record warranting review?
Submissions/Arguments
Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal for petitioner argued that although three points were framed in writ petition, point No. 3 regarding abatement due to death of joint tenant Govind Sul was not answered, and this omission was error apparent on face of record.
Petitioner restricted challenge to ground 'D' of review application, which alleged failure to decide abatement point in detail.
Judgment Excerpts
This Review Application has been filed by the applicant seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998.
though this Court had framed three points for consideration in the Writ Petition, so far as point No. 3 is concerned, this Court has failed to record finding thereon.
the only remedy for the petitioner was to have approached the learned single judge which the petitioner failed to do in the review jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Original application by Mariyambi before Tahsildar; Tahsildar order dated 06.11.1959 partly allowed; Collector appeal order dated 04.06.1963 modified; oral gift by Mariyambi on 22.03.1967; Regular Civil Suit No. 263 of 1972 filed by Abdul Hamid; sale of survey No. 243 to petitioner on 15.12.1972; tenants filed application under Section 46 on 03.08.1973; Tahsildar dismissed application on 30.11.1973 as time-barred; appeal dismissed on 19.04.1975; MRT remanded matter; after remand Tahsildar dismissed application; Deputy Collector allowed appeal on 22.01.1992; MRT dismissed revision on 03.03.1998; Writ Petition No. 1980 of 1998 filed; High Court decided writ petition on 13.08.2010; LPA No. 304 of 2010 dismissed on 04.02.2019 as not maintainable; SLP No. 1195 of 2019 dismissed on 02.07.2019; Review in LPA with Civil Application No. 2250 of 2020 dismissed on 20.02.2020; SLP No. 15136 of 2020 dismissed with liberty to file review before single judge; present Review Application No. 114 of 2022 filed; matter reserved on 07.03.2025 and pronounced on 09.06.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226, Article 227
- Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: Section 46, Section 44, Section 32, Section 102
