Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

Bombay High Court Hears Writ Petition Against Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Order Declaring Kishanrao Kadam as Tenant; Landlord Relies on Earlier Civil Decree and Findings of Tenancy Authorities

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
Admin
2026-08-31 16:34:07
  • 162
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

WRIT PETITION NO. 2345 OF 1992

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (07) 40

Writ Petition No. 2345 of 1992 along with W.P. Nos. 1035 of 1992 and 1822 of 1992

2012-07-04

S.S. Shinde

Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Mr. S.K. Shelke, Mr. R.K. Ashtekar

Gangubai W/o Bhagwanrao Pawatekar (Deceased, represented by Legal Heir Ambubai alias Shubhangi Sureshrao Pawatekar)

Kishanrao s/o Limbajirao Kadam (Deceased) through Legal Representatives and Others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India challenging the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal declaring the first respondent as tenant under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner (land owner) sought to quash the Tribunal's order and restore the civil court decree for possession.

Filing Reason

The MRT allowed revision and declared Kishanrao as tenant, ignoring earlier findings by tenancy authorities and civil court.

Previous Decisions

Tahsildar, Beed allowed resumption of land in favour of Gangubai on 7-1-1961; Naib Tahsildar (Land Reforms) on 14-11-1964 held Kishanrao not a tenant but trespasser, no jurisdiction; Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) on 6-8-1965 affirmed Kishanrao not a tenant; Special Civil Suit No. 4/1974 decreed on 22-4-1977 in favour of Gangubai for possession and mesne profits; Kishanrao's application for framing tenancy issue rejected, civil revision and first appeal dismissed, SLP (Civil) No. 3449/1977 dismissed on 16-11-1977; Thereafter, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision No. 101/B/90/Beed on 24-10-1991 allowed revision and declared Kishanrao as tenant.

Judgment Excerpts

the Tenancy Court has already decided the issue by holding as Kishanrao is a trespasser the Special Leave petition (Civil) was dismissed on 16th November, 1977

Procedural History

In 1961, Gangubai filed application under Section 44 for resumption; Tahsildar ordered resumption. In 1964, possession could not be delivered due to Kishanrao's obstruction; Naib Tahsildar held Kishanrao not a tenant but no jurisdiction to evict. Appeal to Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) in 1965 found Kishanrao a trespasser. Gangubai filed Special Civil Suit No. 4/1974; decreed on 22-4-1977. Kishanrao's attempts to get tenancy issue referred were rejected by civil court, High Court and Supreme Court (SLP dismissed 16-11-1977). Kishanrao later initiated proceedings under Section 8 and other sections; ultimately Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision No. 101/B/90/Beed declared him tenant on 24-10-1991. Writ petitions filed in 1992 challenging said order.

Acts & Sections

  • Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: Section 44, Section 32(2), Section 8, Section 32(1)
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XX Rule 12(c)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
tenancy rights resumption of land personal cultivation trespasser civil decree res judicata writ jurisdiction Hyderabad Tenancy Act Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal jurisdiction mesne profit

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Considers Challenge to Deemed Conveyance Order Passed Under Section 11 of MOFA in Redevelopment Dispute. Petition Raises Questions on Promoter Definition and Competent Authority's Jurisdiction to Adjudicate Title Rights Where Agreem... 2026-09-24 07:22:16
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Dismisses Medical Negligence Suit Against Hospital and Surgeons — Contractual Breach Established. 2026-09-24 07:22:14
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition Natural Justice acquittal murder compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Revision Petitions Against Discharge Order in Corruption...

High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Company Secretary in KOPD Act Case Due to ...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal Against High Court's Reversal of Trial Court's Decree on Wi...

Supreme Court Restores Trial Proceedings in Forgery Case — High Court's Discharge Order ...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Limitation Dispute — Suit Remitted for Fresh Consider...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Arbitration Case — Jurisdiction and Limitation Issues Res...

Supreme Court Upholds Custody of Children Amidst Allegations of Abuse and Parental Alienat...

Lost Your Password?