Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Nilesh Ravindra Varode, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, challenging the judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No.57/B/2013/AN. The dispute arose from the sale of agricultural land Gut No.30/1 admeasuring 21 R situated at village Nimgaon, Korhale, Taluka Rahata, District Ahmednagar, by respondent No.4, Anil Pritamdas Hothchandani, under a registered sale deed dated 23.01.2009. The petitioner, who was the original applicant before the Tribunal, contended that respondent No.4 was not an agriculturist and therefore the sale was in violation of Section 63 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act), which restricts transfer of agricultural lands to non-agriculturists. Respondent No.4 claimed to be an agriculturist and produced a 7/12 extract of Gut No.465 situated at village Rui, Taluka Rahata, and a certified copy of a sale deed to prove his agriculturist status. The Tahsildar initially rejected the petitioner's objection, and the Sub Divisional Officer dismissed the appeal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal of respondent No.4 and held that he was an agriculturist, thereby validating the sale. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The court framed the issue as whether the Tribunal erred in holding respondent No.4 as an agriculturist. The petitioner argued that the evidence produced by respondent No.4 was insufficient and that the Tribunal had misappreciated the facts. The respondents, including the State and respondent No.4, supported the Tribunal's order. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 63 of the Tenancy Act and the definition of 'agriculturist' thereunder. It noted that the burden of proof to show that the purchaser is not an agriculturist lies on the objector, i.e., the petitioner. The court found that respondent No.4 had produced the 7/12 extract of Gut No.465 and a certified copy of a sale deed, which were sufficient to prima facie establish his agriculturist status. The petitioner failed to rebut this evidence or produce any contrary material. The court held that the Tribunal's finding was based on evidence and was not perverse. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order. The judgment was pronounced on 02.01.2020 by Justice V.K. Jadhav.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Agriculturist Status - Section 63 Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner challenged the sale of agricultural land to respondent No.4 on the ground that respondent No.4 was not an agriculturist. The court held that the burden to prove that the purchaser is not an agriculturist lies on the objector. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The Revenue Tribunal's finding that respondent No.4 was an agriculturist based on evidence of ownership of other agricultural land and a prior sale deed was not perverse. (Paras 1-10) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Findings of Fact - The court reiterated that in writ jurisdiction under Article 226, findings of fact by the Revenue Tribunal cannot be interfered with unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's decision was based on material on record and was not shown to be erroneous. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in holding that respondent No.4 was an agriculturist and thus entitled to purchase agricultural land under Section 63 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in Case No.57/B/2013/AN is upheld. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on objector to show non-agriculturist status
- Sufficiency of evidence to prove agriculturist status
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against Revenue Tribunal orders
