Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Shamrao Rambhau Konde and Gulabrao Rambhau Konde, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 8 March 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, which rejected their revision application under Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013. The petitioners claimed to be the legal heirs of the original tenant of land bearing Survey Nos.99/1 and 99/3, admeasuring 5 Acres 33 Gunthas, situated in Village Arvi, Tanajinagar, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. They contended that their predecessor was a tenant of the land and that they had acquired tenancy rights by inheritance. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, had earlier dismissed their claim for tenancy rights, and the Revenue Tribunal upheld that decision. The petitioners argued that the authorities had erred in not considering the evidence on record and that they had been in continuous possession of the land. The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and the legal heirs of Nathu Shiva Konde, opposed the petition, stating that the petitioners had failed to produce any mutation entry or other documentary evidence to prove their tenancy. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the burden to prove tenancy lies on the claimant and that the petitioners had not discharged this burden. The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the mutation entries in favor of the respondents and had not taken any steps to assert their rights for a long period, indicating that their claim was barred by limitation. The court further held that while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, it does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence. Finding no perversity or error of law in the orders of the lower authorities, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Mutation Entry - Burden of Proof - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013, Section 13(4) - The petitioners claimed tenancy rights over land based on their predecessor's tenancy, but failed to produce any mutation entry or other documentary evidence to support their claim. The court held that the burden to prove tenancy lies on the claimant and mere assertion without evidence is insufficient. (Paras 4-6)
B) Limitation - Adverse Possession - Tenancy Rights - The petitioners' claim was also barred by limitation as they had not been in possession of the land for over 12 years prior to filing the suit. The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the mutation entries in favor of the respondents and had not taken any steps to assert their rights for a long period. (Paras 7-9)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, does not act as an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence. The court found no perversity or error of law in the orders of the lower authorities and dismissed the petition. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in rejecting the revision application filed by the petitioners challenging the order of the Sub Divisional Officer which dismissed their claim for tenancy rights over the suit land.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The order dated 8 March 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, rejecting the revision application is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules
- 2013
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Tenancy rights
- Mutation entry
- Adverse possession
- Limitation
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (06) 29
Writ Petition No.5305 of 2021
Ms. Sanjukta Dey a/w Mr. Sagar Paspohe for the Petitioners, Mr. A. B. Kadam, AGP for Respondents No. 1, 3 and 4, Mr. Manoj Patil for Respondents No.5 to 7
Shamrao Rambhau Konde and Gulabrao Rambhau Konde
State of Maharashtra, The Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, The Tahsildar, Haveli, Nathu Shiva Konde (since dead through legal heirs) Dattaray Balu Konde, Manda Balu a.k.a. Shivaji Konde, Bharti Ajay Karanjavne, Sadhna Rajendra Kadu, Bharat Nathu Konde, Gyaneshwar Nathu Konde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting revision application.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash and set aside the order dated 8 March 2021 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, and to restore their claim for tenancy rights over the suit land.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed to be legal heirs of the original tenant of the land and alleged that the authorities erred in rejecting their claim for tenancy rights.
Previous Decisions
The Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, had dismissed the petitioners' claim for tenancy rights. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by order dated 8 March 2021, rejected the revision application filed by the petitioners under Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013.
Issues
Whether the petitioners have established their tenancy rights over the suit land?
Whether the claim of the petitioners is barred by limitation?
Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of the lower authorities under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are legal heirs of the original tenant and have been in continuous possession of the land, and that the authorities erred in not considering the evidence on record.
Respondents contended that the petitioners failed to produce any mutation entry or documentary evidence to prove their tenancy, and that the claim is barred by limitation as the petitioners had not been in possession for over 12 years.
Ratio Decidendi
The burden to prove tenancy lies on the claimant. Mere assertion without evidence, such as mutation entries, is insufficient. The claim was also barred by limitation as the petitioners had not been in possession for over 12 years. The High Court, under Article 227, does not re-appreciate evidence and found no perversity in the orders of the lower authorities.
Judgment Excerpts
For the reasons to be recorded separately, the Writ Petition is dismissed.
Set forth hereunder are the reasons.
By this Petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are challenging the impugned order dated 8th March 2021, passed by Respondent No.2 Presiding Officer, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application No.P/II/7/2021 under Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013, rejecting the said Revision Application.
Procedural History
The petitioners initially filed a claim for tenancy rights before the Sub Divisional Officer, Haveli, which was dismissed. Thereafter, they filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, under Section 13(4) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013, which was rejected by order dated 8 March 2021. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Rules, 2013: Section 13(4)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
