Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved agricultural land bearing Survey No.27 at Chincholi Nakub, Kannad, Aurangabad, where the father of the petitioners was a protected tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Respondent No.3, the landlord, sold part of the land to respondents No.1 and 2 by a sale deed dated 20th February 1968, allegedly dispossessing the tenant in June 1968. The petitioners, as legal representatives, filed an application under Section 32(1) of the Act on 19th February 1970 before the Tahsildar seeking restoration of possession. The respondents denied the tenancy and raised a plea of limitation. The Naib Tahsildar rejected the application on 30th September 1976. On appeal, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms allowed the appeal, but on revision, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal remanded the matter. After remand, the Deputy Collector again rejected the application, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the rejection on 27th September 1990 on two grounds: the application was barred by limitation and the petitioners' father was not cultivating the land since 1959. The petitioners challenged these orders through a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. They contended that the application was filed within two years from the sale deed and dispossession, the lower authorities misread the date, and revenue records proved cultivation. The respondents argued that the tenant had never been a protected tenant, the entries were manipulated, and the application was time-barred. The High Court perused the original record and found that the application was indeed filed on 19th February 1970, well within two years from the sale deed dated 20th February 1968 and the ensuing dispossession, thus the limitation ground was unsustainable. It further noted that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's finding of non-cultivation was contrary to the Appellate Authority's categorical findings and the evidence on record, including 7/12 extracts and the landlord's admission, which showed cultivation by the protected tenant until 1967-68. Consequently, the Court held that the orders of the lower authorities could not be sustained and the writ petition deserved to be allowed, though the final operative order was not fully excerpted in the provided text.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Restoration of Possession - Section 32(1) Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Application for restoration filed on 19-02-1970 after sale deed dated 20-02-1968 and dispossession in June 1968 was within the two-year limitation period - Held that the lower authorities' conclusion that the application was barred by limitation was unsustainable (Paras 11-12).
B) Evidence - Tenancy and Cultivation - Section 32 Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Revenue records, 7/12 extracts, and landlord's admission showed that the protected tenant cultivated the land up to 1967-68 - Held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's finding that cultivation ceased from 1959 was contrary to record and not correct (Paras 9, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the application for restoration of possession under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was barred by limitation; Whether the finding that the petitioners' father was not cultivating the suit land from 1959 was sustainable
Final Decision
The High Court held that the application filed on 19-02-1970 was within two years from the sale deed (20-02-1968) and the alleged dispossession (June 1968), therefore the limitation ground was unsustainable. It further found that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's observation that the petitioners' father was not cultivating from 1959 was contrary to the evidence on record. The orders of the lower authorities were thus held to be unsustainable, though the final operative order allowing the writ petition was not fully excerpted in the provided text.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Limitation period for application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1950 commences from date of dispossession
- application filed within two years from sale deed and dispossession is within limitation
- finding of non-cultivation must be based on evidence
- revenue record and admissions constitute proof of tenancy and cultivation
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (06) 147
WRIT PETITION NO. 602 OF 1991
M.D. Joshi for Petitioners, C.V. Thombre for Respondent No.3
Laxmanrao Manoharrao Dabir, Anandrao Mohanrrao Dabir, Sow. Shailaja w/o Balchandra Sawadkar, Sow. Sharada w/o Sureshrao Kulkarni
Shivram Dhondiba, Rama S/o. Dhondiba, Kalu S/o. Rajaram Mokase (deceased through LRs), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction challenging orders of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Deputy Collector Land Reforms, and Naib Tahsildar that rejected an application for restoration of possession of agricultural land under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought restoration of possession of agricultural land admeasuring 3 Acres 36 Gunthas from which they were allegedly dispossessed in June 1968.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, as legal representatives of the original protected tenant, claimed illegal dispossession following a sale deed executed by the landlord in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, and filed application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 on 19th February 1970.
Previous Decisions
Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Record, Kannad rejected the application on 30-09-1976; Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad allowed the appeal initially but after remand again rejected it; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad confirmed the rejection on 27-09-1990 in Case No.8/B/90, holding the application barred by limitation and denying cultivation since 1959.
Issues
Whether the application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 was filed within the period of limitation
Whether the finding that the petitioners' father was not cultivating the suit land from 1959 was correct
Whether the orders of the lower authorities were sustainable
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the sale deed was dated 20-02-1968, dispossession occurred in June 1968, and the application filed on 19-02-1970 was within two years; the lower authorities misread the date as 19-02-1979; revenue records and landlord's admission proved cultivation until 1967-68; application maintainable under Section 32 as per Kerba Bhiwaji Shinde v. Salubai Nagorao, 1983 Mh.L.J. 1009.
Respondents contended that the petitioners' father was never a protected tenant, the revenue entries were collusively mutated, respondents had been in possession since 1959, the application was barred by limitation, and the petitioners failed to prove the exact date of dispossession.
Ratio Decidendi
For an application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 seeking restoration of possession, limitation commences from the date of dispossession; when the application is filed within two years from the date of the sale deed and the alleged dispossession, it is within limitation. A finding of non-cultivation must be based on a correct appreciation of evidence, including revenue records and admissions.
Judgment Excerpts
Therefore, in my opinion, the said ground that, the application filed by the Petitioners’ father was not within limitation, as held by the Appellate Authority and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, cannot be sustained.
Secondly, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was not correct in observing that, the Petitioners’ father was not in cultivation of the suit land from the year 1959.
Procedural History
Petitioners, as legal representatives of deceased protected tenant Shamrao, filed an application under Section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 before the Tahsildar, Kannad on 19-02-1970 for restoration of possession. The Naib Tahsildar, Revenue Record, Kannad rejected the application on 30-09-1976. The petitioners appealed to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, who initially allowed the appeal. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. On remand, the Deputy Collector again rejected the application, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the rejection on 27-09-1990 in Case No.8/B/90. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: 32(1)
