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
2026-11-08 15:26:19
  • 175
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 Quashes Magistrate's Order in RTI Complaint Case for Lack of Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC. Public servant acting in official capacity cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19... 2026-11-08 16:09:02
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Applications for Directions in Karnataka Reservation Case. No Fresh Cause of Action Arises from Implementation of Reservation Act 2018 After Final Judgment. 2026-11-08 16:09:00
Categories
Popular Tags
writ petition murder acquittal natural justice compensation land acquisition burden of proof Jurisdiction limitation circumstantial evidence
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 Dismisses State's Writ Petition Against Tribunal's Order for Appointment of Exc...

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Enforcement Directorate Actions in Multiple Writ Petitions...

Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Death Sentence in POCSO Case Due to Credible Testimon...

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

Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Limitation Dispute Over Civil Works Contract. The Court fou...

Supreme Court Upholds Compulsory Retirement of Employees in Public Service — Validity of...

Supreme Court Upholds Eviction Process in Forest Areas While Ensuring Compliance with Fore...

Lost Your Password?