Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Petitioners, Prabhu Anant Lungase and another, claimed that their father, Anant Lungase, became a deemed purchaser of land Gat No.75 in Village Lahu, Taluka Madha, District Solapur, under Section 32G of the Act. The Respondents, legal heirs of the original landlord Hanumant T. Kamble, contested this claim. The Tahsildar, Madha, in Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991, rejected the Petitioners' claim, holding that no proceedings under Section 32G were initiated and no purchase price was determined. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha, in Tenancy Appeal No.18 of 1993, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision, upheld this decision. The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition in 1997, which was dismissed by the Bombay High Court. The court found that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were based on evidence and not perverse. The Petitioners failed to prove that their father became a deemed purchaser. The court also noted that the interim order of status quo granted earlier was vacated. The decision upheld the orders of the Tahsildar, SDO, and MRT.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Deemed Purchase - Section 32G Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The issue was whether the tenant became a deemed purchaser of the land. The court held that the tenant failed to prove initiation of proceedings under Section 32G and determination of purchase price. The concurrent findings of the Tahsildar, SDO, and MRT were upheld as they were based on evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings - Interference by High Court - The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless shown to be perverse or based on no evidence. The Petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioners' predecessor-in-title became a deemed purchaser of the subject land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether the concurrent findings of the lower authorities are sustainable.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the orders of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The interim order of status quo was vacated.
Law Points
- Deemed purchase under Section 32G of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 requires initiation of proceedings and determination of purchase price
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered with unless perverse
- burden of proof on tenant to establish deemed purchase.
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 110
WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 1997 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 30132 OF 2022
Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for Petitioners, Mr. A.R. Metkari for Respondents
Prabhu Anant Lungase and Anr.
Pralhad Hanumant Kamble Since deceased through his legal heirs Dattatraya Pralhad Kamble and Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition challenging orders under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 regarding deemed purchase of agricultural land.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order dated 12.09.1996 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, and the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar, and to declare that their father became a deemed purchaser of the subject land.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed that their father became a deemed purchaser of the subject land under Section 32G of the Act, but the lower authorities rejected their claim.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar, Madha passed order dated 30.09.1993 in Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991 rejecting the claim; Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha dismissed appeal on 15.02.1994 in Tenancy Appeal No.18 of 1993; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dismissed revision on 12.09.1996.
Issues
Whether the Petitioners' predecessor-in-title became a deemed purchaser of the subject land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether the concurrent findings of the lower authorities are perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that their father became a deemed purchaser under Section 32G of the Act and that the lower authorities erred in rejecting their claim.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no proceedings under Section 32G were initiated.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court declined to interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless shown to be perverse. The Petitioners failed to prove that proceedings under Section 32G were initiated or that their father became a deemed purchaser. The burden of proof was on the Petitioners, which they did not discharge.
Judgment Excerpts
This Writ Petition arises out of proceedings between parties under provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Thus, there are three concurrent orders against the Petitioners.
Procedural History
The Tahsildar, Madha passed order on 30.09.1993 in Tenancy Case No.83 of 1991. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Madha dismissed appeal on 15.02.1994 in Tenancy Appeal No.18 of 1993. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dismissed revision on 12.09.1996. The Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.1962 of 1997 in the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 05.06.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 32G
