Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhaurao Saluba Ekande and Jija Saluba Ekande, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, dated 19th February 1992. The dispute originated from a civil suit (R.C.S. No. 63/1977) filed by the petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambad, seeking a permanent injunction against the respondents, Punjabrao Rangrao Chavan and Dnyandeo Rangnath Sade, to restrain them from interfering with the petitioners' right to use well water. In that suit, an issue was framed whether petitioner No. 1 had become the owner of the well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. A reference was made under Section 99A of the Tenancy Act to the Tahsildar for deciding that issue. The Additional Tahsildar decided the issue against the petitioners. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Collector, who upheld the Additional Tahsildar's order. The petitioners then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which allowed the revision and remanded the matter to the Deputy Collector for fresh decision. On remand, the Deputy Collector again negatived the petitioners' contention by upholding the Additional Tahsildar's order. The petitioners again challenged that order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by filing a revision, which was dismissed, confirming the orders of the authorities below. Hence, the present writ petition. The counsel for the petitioners argued that the authorities had not followed the legal provisions in their proper perspective, particularly Section 2(j) read with Section 38 of the Tenancy Act. The counsel for the respondents contended that there were concurrent findings of fact that the petitioners were never declared protected tenants in respect of the disputed area, and therefore, this Court should not interfere. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below did not warrant interference under writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Ownership of Well - Section 38E Hyderabad Tenancy Act - Concurrent Findings of Fact - The petitioners claimed ownership of a well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. The Additional Tahsildar, Deputy Collector, and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurrently held that the petitioners were never declared protected tenants in respect of the disputed area. The High Court declined to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact, as no perversity or error of law was shown. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners had become owners of the well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act and whether the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Scope of writ jurisdiction
- Section 38E Hyderabad Tenancy Act
- Section 2(j) Hyderabad Tenancy Act
- Section 99A Hyderabad Tenancy Act
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (03) 64
Writ Petition No. 2199 of 1992
Shri S. S. Bora, Advocate h/f Shri S. C. Bora, Advocate for Petitioners; Shri A. A. Joshi, Advocate for Respondents
Bhaurao Saluba Ekande and Jija Saluba Ekande
Punjabrao Rangrao Chavan and Dnyandeo Rangnath Sade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing revision and confirming concurrent findings that petitioners were not owners of the well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and to be declared owners of the well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed ownership of a well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act, but the authorities below concurrently held that they were never declared protected tenants in respect of the disputed area.
Previous Decisions
Additional Tahsildar decided the issue against petitioners; Deputy Collector upheld that order; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal initially remanded, but on second revision dismissed it confirming the orders below.
Issues
Whether the petitioners had become owners of the well under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act.
Whether the concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below warrant interference under writ jurisdiction.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the authorities did not follow legal provisions in proper perspective, particularly Section 2(j) read with Section 38 of the Tenancy Act.
Respondents argued that there were concurrent findings of fact that petitioners were never declared protected tenants, and therefore, the Court should not interfere.
Ratio Decidendi
Concurrent findings of fact by the authorities below, based on proper appreciation of evidence, cannot be interfered with under writ jurisdiction unless perversity or error of law is shown. The petitioners failed to establish that they were declared protected tenants in respect of the disputed area, and thus, their claim under Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act was not sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and in particular provisions of Sec. 2(j) of the Act read with Section 38 of the Tenancy Act and submitted that, while considering the claim of the petitioners, the authorities have not followed the legal provisions in its proper perspective.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, two authorities on appreciation of facts held that so far area under dispute is concerned, the petitioners were never declared as protected tenant.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed R.C.S. No. 63/1977 for permanent injunction; issue referred to Tahsildar under Section 99A; Additional Tahsildar decided against petitioners; appeal to Deputy Collector dismissed; first revision to M.R.T. allowed and remanded; on remand, Deputy Collector again negatived petitioners; second revision to M.R.T. dismissed; hence writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Hyderabad Tenancy Act: Section 2(j), Section 38, Section 38E, Section 99A
