Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dealt with 128 writ petitions filed by landowners challenging a common order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which had remanded certain agricultural tenancy claims for fresh enquiry. The dispute originated in 1983 when 234 individuals filed applications under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, claiming tenancy over lands situated in Thane district. The Tahsildar initially declared them tenants in 1986, but on appeal, the Assistant Collector set aside that order in 1989 and remanded the matters for de novo enquiry with directions to treat each case individually. On remand, the Resident Nayab Tahsildar again declared 134 applicants as protected tenants between November 2000 and September 2002. The landowners appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer, who on 13-16 December 2002 allowed the appeals and set aside the tenancy declarations, holding that the applicants had adduced no sufficient evidence of tenancy. Some applicants then filed revisions under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, while recording detailed findings that the land was non-agricultural, that there was no proof of cultivation or rent payment, and that the applicants had failed to establish their claim, nonetheless remanded the cases for fresh enquiry. The landowners challenged this remand order in the High Court, arguing that it was legally untenable. The core legal issue was whether a remand order could be passed when the revisional authority itself had concluded that there was no material evidence on record to prove tenancy. The petitioners contended, relying on precedents, that a remand cannot be ordered to fill up lacunae and that once the tribunal finds no evidence, the only proper course is to dismiss the revision. The respondents sought to justify the remand as necessary for a proper adjudication of status. The High Court, per Dharmadhikari J., accepted the petitioners’ submissions and held that the Tribunal’s order was wholly unjustified. It observed that permitting a fresh enquiry in the face of a categorical finding that no tenancy was proved would amount to providing an opportunity to the applicants to fill up the gaps in their case, which is impermissible under law. The court drew upon the principles underlying Order XLI Rules 23 and 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and emphasized that when the lower authority’s order is reversed on a preliminary point or in the interest of justice, a remand may be ordered, but not when the entire case has been heard on merits and the evidence is found to be completely lacking. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed; the impugned orders of the Tribunal were quashed and set aside, and the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer were restored. No further enquiry was directed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure – Remand – Scope of Remand – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rules 23, 23A; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 70(b), 76 – Where an appellate/revisional authority under the BTAL Act has recorded a finding that the applicants have not led any evidence to prove tenancy and that there is absolutely no material on the record to substantiate their claim, it is impermissible to then remand the case for fresh enquiry as this would amount to filling up lacunae in the case; the proper course is to dismiss the appeal/revision and affirm the order setting aside the tenancy declaration. Held, the Tribunal’s order of remand was unjustified and liable to be quashed, and the writ petitions are allowed. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error by remanding the tenancy cases for fresh enquiry after recording conclusive findings that the tenants had failed to prove their claim and there was no material evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed and set aside the impugned orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and held that no remand was necessary.
Law Points
- Remand cannot be ordered to fill up lacunae
- When appellate authority finds no evidence to support the claim
- the proper course is to dismiss the case outright
- The principles of remand under Order XLI Rules 23 and 23A of CPC are applicable to proceedings under the BTAL Act
- Mere status application does not require remand when no prima facie tenancy is established.
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (11) 23
Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2012 (along with Writ Petition Nos. 2535-2538 & 2540-2662 of 2012)
Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karl Tamboly, Mr. Kunal Vajani, Mr. Pranaya Goyal, Mr. Chinmaya Gajaria for petitioners; Mr. R. M. Patne, A.G.P. for State; Mr. Subhash Jha with Mr. Dinesh Tiwary for some respondents; Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Swapnil Ambire, Subhash Patil, Santosh Avhad, Ms. Monica Mishra for three respondents
Jairaj Kantilal Sonawala, Chandrakant Kantilal Shah, Nitin Kantilal Sonawala, Madhu Kantilal Sonawala, Ameeta Virendra Sonawala, Alok Virendra Sonawala, Karishma Ajay Agarwal
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Lalita Ramesh Lase, Dhananjay Ramesh Lase, Bharat Ramesh Lase, Pravin Ramesh Lase, Rakhi Sandeep Santhar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
The litigation involves writ petitions filed by landowners challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which remanded tenancy claims under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for fresh enquiry, despite finding no evidence to support the claims of tenancy.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (landowners) sought quashing of the Tribunal's order of remand and a direction that the revision applications be dismissed, thereby restoring the Sub-Divisional Officer's order which had set aside the tenancy declarations.
Filing Reason
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, after hearing revisions against the Sub-Divisional Officer's order, passed a common order remanding the cases back for fresh enquiry, even though it had given findings that the applicants had failed to prove their tenancy. The petitioners contended that such a remand was impermissible and without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
Initially, the Tahsildar had declared the applicants as tenants in 1986. On appeal, the Assistant Collector remanded for de novo enquiry in 1989. On remand, the Resident Nayab Tahsildar again declared the applicants as protected tenants between 2000-2002. The Sub-Divisional Officer, in December 2002, allowed the landlords' appeals and set aside the Tahsildar's orders, holding that there was no sufficient evidence of tenancy. The applicants then preferred revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which passed the impugned order of remand.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's order of remand was legally justified when its own findings concluded that the original applicants had failed to adduce any evidence to prove their claim of tenancy.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that once the Tribunal found that there was absolutely no material on record to conclude that the original applicants had proved their case of tenancy, it could not remand the case for fresh enquiry; such a remand would be to fill up lacunae and is impermissible under the principles of Order XLI Rules 23 and 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Respondents submitted that the Tribunal was justified in remanding the matter as it was considering the status of the parties under Section 70(b) of the BTAL Act and a fresh enquiry with proper evidence was warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
When an appellate or revisional authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 concludes that there is no evidence whatsoever to prove the claim of tenancy, a remand for fresh enquiry is impermissible as it would allow the party to fill up lacunae in its case; the proper course is to dismiss the proceedings. This principle is in accord with the scheme of Order XLI Rules 23 and 23A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Judgment Excerpts
The Tribunal, after having given conclusive findings in favour of the present petitioners, has unnecessarily and without any justification directed a remand of the cases.
If the Tribunal was of the opinion that there is absolutely no material on record to conclude that the original applicants have proved their case of tenancy, then, why the remand has been ordered is not clear at all.
Once the case has been dealt with on merits and there are conclusive findings rendered, then, a remand is wholly unnecessary. A higher Court having opined that the material record is insufficient or there is no evidence or that there is no material at all, then, a remand can never be directed.
Procedural History
In 1983, 234 applicants filed applications under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tahsildar, claiming tenancy over agricultural lands in Thane district. In 1986, the Tahsildar declared them tenants ex-parte. The landowners appealed, and the Assistant Collector, in 1989, set aside the orders and remanded for de novo enquiry with a direction to treat each case individually. On remand, the Resident Nayab Tahsildar, between November 2000 and September 2002, again declared 134 applicants as protected tenants. The landowners appealed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), who, on 13-16 December 2002, allowed the appeals and set aside the tenancy orders, holding that no sufficient evidence was adduced. Some applicants then filed revisions under Section 76 of the Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order, remanded the cases again for fresh enquiry. Writ petitions were filed in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's remand on the ground that it was unjustified in light of its own findings that no evidence of tenancy existed. The High Court consolidated and heard 128 petitions together.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (B.T.A.L. Act): 70(b), 76
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order XLI Rule 23, Order XLI Rule 23A
