Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Ananda Sakharam Padalkar, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 12th March 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune, in Revision Application No.SS/II/2/2015. The Tribunal had affirmed the concurrent findings of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirala, dated 16th September 2013 in proceedings No.32G/Suit No.3/2010 under Section 32-O of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Walva Division at Islampur, dated 23rd January 2015 in Appeal No.04 of 2013 under Section 74 of the Act. The dispute pertained to agricultural land where the petitioner claimed to be a tenant. The respondents, who were the landlords, sought possession under Section 32-O. The petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence such as rent receipts, crop statements, or revenue records to establish his tenancy. All three authorities concurrently held that the petitioner was not a tenant. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The court observed that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are wholly unsupported by evidence or perverse. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Tenant Status - Burden of Proof - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 32-O, 74, 76 - The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the suit land but failed to produce any documentary evidence such as rent receipts, crop statements, or revenue records to prove his tenancy. The authorities below concurrently held that the petitioner was not a tenant. The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, as they were based on appreciation of evidence and not perverse. (Paras 1-10)
B) Tenancy Law - Concurrent Findings - Scope of Interference under Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - The High Court held that the concurrent findings of the Tahsildar, Sub-Divisional Officer, and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were based on evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. The court reiterated that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate, and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are wholly unsupported by evidence or perverse. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was a tenant entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below were perverse or suffered from any error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the concurrent findings of the authorities below that the petitioner was not a tenant.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Section 32-O Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Section 74 Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Section 76 Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948
- Burden of proof on tenant
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 39
Writ Petition No.8100 of 2018
Mr. S.M. Kamble for Petitioner, Mr. Pratap Patil for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
Shri. Ananda Sakharam Padalkar
Shri. Sachin Maruti Koli, Shri. Nitin Maruti Koli, Smt. Shalan Maruti Koli
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 concurrent orders under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 12th March 2018 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and the underlying orders of the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed to be a tenant of the disputed agricultural land and challenged the concurrent findings that he was not a tenant, which allowed the respondents (landlords) to seek possession under Section 32-O of the Act.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirala, passed an order dated 16th September 2013 in proceedings No.32G/Suit No.3/2010 under Section 32-O of the Act, holding that the petitioner was not a tenant. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Walva Division at Islampur, dismissed the appeal on 23rd January 2015 in Appeal No.04 of 2013 under Section 74 of the Act. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune, dismissed the revision on 12th March 2018 in Revision Application No.SS/II/2/2015 under Section 76 of the Act.
Issues
Whether the petitioner was a tenant entitled to protection under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether the concurrent findings of the authorities below were perverse or suffered from any error of law warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was a tenant and that the authorities below erred in holding otherwise.
The respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence to prove his tenancy and that the concurrent findings were based on evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the statutory authorities under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India unless they are perverse or suffer from a jurisdictional error. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving his tenancy by producing documentary evidence such as rent receipts or revenue records.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 12th March 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune in Revision Application No.SS/II/2/2015 fled under the provisions of Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
The relevant facts pertaining to the lis between the parties is stated at the outset.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a suit under Section 32-O of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirala, which was dismissed on 16th September 2013. The petitioner appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Walva Division at Islampur, under Section 74 of the Act, which was dismissed on 23rd January 2015. The petitioner then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune, under Section 76 of the Act, which was dismissed on 12th March 2018. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 32-O, 74, 76
- Constitution of India: Article 227
