Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a tenancy declaration under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and a related land acquisition compensation apportionment. The respondent-tenant filed an application under section 70(b) of the Act seeking declaration of tenancy over two agricultural lands. The Tahsildar initially rejected the application, but after a series of remands and fresh inquiries, allowed it on 31 March 1987, relying on evidence of cultivation and crop entries. The landlords' appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 5 October 1990, and their revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 17 September 1991, resulting in concurrent findings of fact in favour of the tenant. The landlords filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that the tenant had failed to prove contractual or deemed tenancy and that the authorities committed an error of law apparent on the record. The tenant relied on the concurrent findings and submitted that the High Court should not re-appreciate evidence in its supervisory jurisdiction. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that under the settled principles in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, the writ court cannot convert itself into an appellate court; interference is warranted only when the error is manifest and causes grave injustice. Finding no such patent error in the orders below, the court dismissed the writ petition. Consequently, the connected First Appeal regarding apportionment of compensation was disposed of as infructuous, and the apportionment order was confirmed. The decision underscores the limited scope of Article 227 and the finality of concurrent findings of fact in revenue matters.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Court - Scope under Article 227 - Constitution of India, Article 227 - High Court in exercise of certiorari jurisdiction cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the inferior court unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the record and causes grave injustice. Concurrent findings of fact by three revenue authorities, based on evidence of cultivation and crop entries, cannot be interfered with merely because a different view is possible. Held that no patent error was established, and the writ petition was dismissed (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 to upset concurrent findings of fact by revenue authorities declaring the respondent as a tenant under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in the absence of any patent error or grave injustice.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that no case was made out for interference with the concurrent findings of the three authorities below. The Court, relying on Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai, held that under Article 227, the High Court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own findings; the error must be patent and cause grave injustice. The First Appeal was disposed of as infructuous in view of the confirmation of the tenant's status, and the apportionment order was confirmed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227
- certiorari scope
- concurrent findings
- patent error
- grave injustice
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 128
Writ Petition No. 4951 of 1991 (with Civil Application No. 2295 of 2007) and First Appeal No. 375 of 1992 (with Civil Application No. 4265 of 2007)
C.P. Deogirikar for Petitioners/Appellants; S.M. Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Anant Chintaman Oze (since deceased through his heirs Dilip Anant Oze and Pushpakant alias Pushpasheel Anant Oze) and Kashinath Chintaman Oze
Laxman Mahadu Nigrose, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, and The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation, Raigad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Dispute regarding declaration of tenancy under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and apportionment of compensation in a land acquisition matter.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners/landlords sought quashing of the orders of the revenue authorities that declared the respondent as a tenant under section 70(b) of the Act, and also challenged the apportionment of compensation in the connected first appeal.
Filing Reason
The landlords contended that the respondent had failed to prove either contractual or deemed tenancy, and that there was no entry in the record of rights until a pencil entry in 1981; they alleged error of law apparent on the face of the record in the concurrent findings of the authorities below.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar initially rejected the tenancy application, but after remand, allowed it. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the landlords' appeal and confirmed the Tahsildar's order. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the landlords' revision application. The Reference Court in land acquisition apportioned 68% compensation to the landlord and 32% to the tenant, subject to the outcome of the tenancy proceedings.
Issues
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the revenue authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in the absence of any patent error or manifest illegality.
Whether the tenant had established his claim of tenancy under section 70(b) of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the tenant did not prove contractual or deemed tenancy, there was no record of rights entry before 1981, and the entry was a pencil entry, and that the authorities below committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record.
The respondents contended that there were concurrent findings of fact by three authorities, based on evidence of cultivation and crop entries from 1981-82 to 1986-87, and that the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 should not be exercised to re-appreciate evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction is not appellate; it cannot re-appreciate evidence or correct errors of fact. Intervention is warranted only when the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the record and results in grave injustice or gross failure of justice. Concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, supported by evidence, should not be disturbed in the absence of such patent error.
Judgment Excerpts
the authorities came to the conclusion that the Respondent No.1 was cultivating the land even prior to 1957. The Authorities also have noted that the Petitioners herein did not lead any evidence whatsoever.
Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless ... the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings ... and a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
Procedural History
The respondent-tenant filed an application under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar initially rejected it on 30.11.1981. On appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer remanded the matter. The Tahsildar again dismissed the application for want of prosecution on 10.1.1984, but the appeal was allowed and remanded on 1.9.1986. After recording evidence, the Tahsildar allowed the application on 31.3.1987. The landlords' appeal was dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 5.10.1990, and their revision application was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 17.9.1991. The landlords then filed Writ Petition No. 4951 of 1991. Separately, in land acquisition proceedings, the Reference Court apportioned compensation (68% to landlord, 32% to tenant) by order dated not specified. Consent terms filed in Revision Application No. 691 of 1990 provided that after disposal of the tenancy appeal, stay would stand vacated. The First Appeal No. 375 of 1992 was filed challenging the apportionment. Both matters were clubbed by order dated 31.1.2011 and heard together.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 70(b)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
