Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Padmaja Pradip Walawalkar, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 29 September 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Mumbai, which allowed Revision Application No. 346 of 2019 filed by the respondents and reversed the decisions of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kudal dated 23 July 2019 in Tenancy Appeal No. 26 of 2018 and the order of the Election Naib Tehsildar dated 07 December 2017 in Tenancy Case No. 44 of 2014. The petitioner claimed to be a tenant in respect of property bearing Survey No.130 (436), Hissa No. 5A, admeasuring 0H. 30 R plus pot kharaba land admeasuring 0H. 10 R situated at Village Nhive, Taluka Malvan, District Sindhudurg. She claimed that respondent nos.1 and 2 were the landlords and that her tenancy rights derived from her father Krushna Parab. She alleged uninterrupted cultivation for 24 years, growing paddy rice, cashew nuts, and mangoes, and residing in a farmhouse registered with the Gram Panchayat. She paid rent of Rs. 50/- per year but did not insist on receipts due to good relations. Upon obtaining a 7/12 extract on 06 May 2004, she discovered her name was not recorded as a tenant, prompting her to file an application under sections 70(b) and 4(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Election Naib Tehsildar, who declared her a tenant. The Sub-Divisional Officer upheld this on appeal. The MRT, in revision, reversed these findings, holding that the petitioner failed to prove tenancy. The High Court found that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding any perversity in the concurrent findings. The court noted that the lower authorities had relied on evidence such as 7/12 extracts showing the petitioner's name, rent receipts, and testimony of witnesses. The High Court held that the MRT's order was unsustainable and set it aside, restoring the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Naib Tehsildar. The court emphasized that the MRT, in revisional jurisdiction, could not substitute its own findings unless the findings were perverse or based on no evidence.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Declaration of Tenancy - Sections 70(b) and 4(2) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The petitioner sought declaration as a tenant based on long-standing cultivation and payment of rent. The Sub-Divisional Officer and Naib Tehsildar had found in her favor, but the MRT reversed. The High Court held that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding perversity. The concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence of cultivation, rent receipts, and 7/12 extracts. Held that the MRT's order was unsustainable and set aside, restoring the orders of the lower authorities (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in reversing the concurrent findings of fact regarding the petitioner's tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the MRT order dated 29 September 2021, and restored the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 23 July 2019 and the Election Naib Tehsildar dated 07 December 2017.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- Burden of proof
- Section 70(b) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Section 4(2) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Revisional jurisdiction of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
