Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned agricultural lands in Sangli district between landowners and a co-operative society, respondent no.1, which claimed deemed tenancy and purchase rights under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The society had taken the lands on registered leases in December 1950 for 50 years, expiring in 2000. The society asserted it had obtained an exemption certificate under Section 43A(1) of the Act from the District Deputy Registrar on 12 December 1969, thereby making Sections 32 to 32R applicable and entitling it to purchase the land as deemed tenant under Section 32G. The landowners contested this. Earlier proceedings began in 1968 when the society applied to the A.L.T. for fixing purchase price under Section 32G; the application was dismissed for non-production of the exemption certificate. The Collector dismissed the society's appeal on 24 May 1969. The MRT by order dated 15 June 1970 remanded the case to the Tahsildar for further enquiry on the claim that a certificate had been obtained after the Collector's order. The matter remained dormant until 2001. In 2001, the Tahsildar held that Section 32G was not applicable due to the bar under Section 43A; the SDO confirmed that order in 2002. The society filed a revision before the MRT. By impugned order dated 19 April 2014, the MRT allowed the revision, set aside the Tahsildar and SDO orders, and remanded the case for fresh inquiry, accepting the society's claim that the exemption certificate existed. The landowners filed the writ petition challenging the MRT order, contending that no valid exemption certificate was ever issued and that the MRT proceeded on a presumption. The High Court on 13 January 2023 directed the State to file an affidavit on whether the District Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction under the Act and Rules to issue such a certificate. The State filed an affidavit of the District Deputy Registrar stating that he had no jurisdiction under the BT & AL Act and Rules to issue any exemption certificate. The court's analysis focused on the validity of the exemption certificate and the MRT's reliance on it. The available judgment text ends before the final operative order, but the court's observations indicated that the MRT's order was unsustainable because it rested on an invalid exemption certificate issued without jurisdiction. The court noted the chequered history and repeated remands over 50 years.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Exemption Certificate - Section 43A(1) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The MRT allowed the revision and remanded the case on the assumption that respondent no.1 society had obtained an exemption certificate dated 12 December 1969 from the District Deputy Registrar; the High Court directed the State to file an affidavit on the jurisdiction of the District Deputy Registrar to issue such a certificate; the affidavit stated that the District Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction under the BT & AL Act and Rules to issue any exemption certificate - Held that reliance on a certificate issued by an authority lacking jurisdiction under the Act is legally unsustainable (Paras 8-11).
B) Tenancy Law - Remand by Revenue Tribunal - Validity of Exemption - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 32G, 43A - The Tahsildar and SDO had held that Section 32G was not applicable to the suit land because of the bar under Section 43A; the MRT set aside those orders and remanded for fresh inquiry without first determining whether the alleged exemption certificate was validly issued - Held that the MRT could not set aside well-reasoned orders and remand on a mere presumption of a valid exemption certificate (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in allowing the revision and remanding the tenancy case on the basis of an exemption certificate dated 12 December 1969 allegedly issued by the District Deputy Registrar under Section 43A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether that authority had jurisdiction to issue such a certificate.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in available text; the judgment text ends before the final operative order. The court had directed the State to file an affidavit on the jurisdiction of the District Deputy Registrar, and the affidavit stated no such jurisdiction.
Law Points
- A certificate of exemption under Section 43A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 must be issued by the competent authority under the Act and Rules
- the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies has no jurisdiction to issue such an exemption certificate
- the MRT cannot presume the existence of a valid exemption certificate without verifying its legality
- a remand for fresh inquiry is unsustainable if based on an invalid exemption certificate.
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (01) 83
WRIT PETITION NO.10629 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.126 OF 2017
S. G. Deshmukh with Ramdas Shelke for Petitioners; N. J. Patil i/b Amey N. Patil for Respondent No.1; S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No.4-State
Chidanand Ogyappa Yammi (since deceased) through his LRs and Ors.
Girish Sahakari Samudaik Krishi Sangh Maryadit, Nigdi Budruk through its Chairman Shri Prabhu Laxman Birnale; Vijaysinghraje Ramraoraje Daphale (since deceased) through his LRs; Sidhgonda Basgonda Patil; State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a tenancy proceeding under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (landowners and original opponents) sought quashing of the MRT order dated 19 April 2014, restoration of the Tahsildar and SDO orders rejecting the society's deemed tenancy/purchase claim, and a declaration that no valid exemption certificate under Section 43A(1) was issued to respondent no.1 society.
Filing Reason
The MRT allowed respondent no.1 society's revision by presuming the society had obtained a valid exemption certificate dated 12 December 1969 from the District Deputy Registrar, thereby setting aside the lower authorities' orders and remanding the case; petitioners contended the certificate was invalid and the MRT erred in law.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar A.L.T. Jat by order dated 29 September 2001 in Tenancy Case No. Nigdi Bk-32G/227/2001 held Section 32G not applicable due to Section 43A; SDO Miraj by order dated 5 March 2002 in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 2001 dismissed the society's appeal and confirmed the Tahsildar's order; MRT by impugned order dated 19 April 2014 in Revenue Application No. TNC/REV/SS/46/B/2002 set aside both orders and remanded to Tahsildar for fresh inquiry.
Issues
Whether the MRT erred in setting aside the Tahsildar and SDO orders on the assumption that respondent no.1 society had a valid exemption certificate under Section 43A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies had jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and Rules to issue an exemption certificate under Section 43A(1).
Whether the MRT could remand the matter for fresh inquiry without determining the validity of the alleged exemption certificate dated 12 December 1969.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that no valid exemption certificate under Section 43A(1) was ever issued to respondent no.1; the MRT based its remand on a mere presumption; the District Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction; the controversy had been kept alive for over 50 years under the garb of an exemption certificate.
Respondent no.1 society claimed it had obtained the necessary exemption certificate on 12 December 1969 immediately after the Collector's order dated 24 May 1969, thereby making Sections 32 to 32R applicable and entitling it to become a deemed purchaser under Section 32G.
The State, through the District Deputy Registrar's affidavit, stated that the District Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction under the BT & AL Act and Rules to issue any exemption certificate.
Ratio Decidendi
A remand order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is unsustainable if it rests on the presumption that an exemption certificate under Section 43A(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was validly issued by the District Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, an authority which has no jurisdiction under the Act and Rules to issue such a certificate.
Judgment Excerpts
The MRT, proceeded in allowing Respondent No.1’s Revision Application accepting, Respondent No.1’s case that Respondent No.1 had obtained necessary Certificate of Exemption, immediately after the Collector passed an order on 12 th December, 1969...
The question is whether the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sangli would at all have a jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 along with Rules made thereunder to issue an exemption under Section 43A(1) of the said Act.
the District Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction under the BT & AL Act along with Rules made thereunder to issue any exemption certificate...
Procedural History
Leases of suit lands executed in 1950 for 50 years; society's Section 32G application in 1968 dismissed for want of exemption certificate; Collector dismissed appeal on 24 May 1969; MRT by order 15 June 1970 remanded to Tahsildar for fresh enquiry; proceedings dormant until 2001; Tahsildar by order 29 September 2001 held Section 32G not applicable due to Section 43A; SDO dismissed society's appeal on 5 March 2002; society filed revision before MRT; MRT by order 19 April 2014 allowed revision, set aside lower orders, and remanded; landowners filed writ petition challenging MRT order; High Court on 13 January 2023 directed State to file affidavit on jurisdiction of District Deputy Registrar; State filed affidavit stating no jurisdiction; judgment pronounced on 17 February 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Sections 32, 32G, 32 to 32R, 43A, 43A(1), 43A(2), 43(1)(c)
