Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a long-standing dispute over a parcel of land bearing Survey No. 318, Hissa No. 7A, area 1 Acre 12 Gunthas at Village Dahisar, Taluka Borivali, Mumbai. The petitioner company claimed ownership through an auction purchase conducted by the Court Receiver in a pending administration suit concerning the estate of the late Haji Ali Mohammed Haji Cassum. In 1962, the High Court authorized the Court Receiver to sell approximately 644 acres, including the suit property, by public auction. One K. Lalchand participated in the auction and was declared the highest bidder; the sale was confirmed in his favour and/or his nominees. Following K. Lalchand's demise, the Court Receiver was directed to execute conveyances in favour of his nominees and legal heirs, leading to the petitioner being nominated as the purchaser. The respondents 1 to 6 claimed to be the legal heirs of one Chauthubai Dharman Patil, whose name appeared in old mutation entries as a cultivator of the suit land. In 2013, they filed an application under section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tahsildar, Borivali, praying for a declaration of their tenancy and fixation of the purchase price. The Tahsildar allowed the application on 2 December 2013, fixing the purchase price. The petitioner’s appeal under section 74 before the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District, was dismissed on 5 February 2015. Subsequently, the petitioner’s revision application under section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was also dismissed on 28 April 2017. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the orders of the revenue authorities. The petition was heard on 12 October 2018, and judgment was reserved. The High Court pronounced its judgment on 5 February 2019, but only the initial factual narrative was available in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent nos. 1 to 6 had established a valid claim of tenancy over the suit property under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to entitle them to fixation of purchase price under section 32G, especially in light of the petitioner’s acquisition of title through a court-conducted auction and the respondents’ prior tenancy proceedings for adjacent land.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (03) 42
WRIT PETITION NO. 5539 OF 2017
Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Prasad S. Dani, Senior Advocate, Mr. J.G. Reddy instructed by Mr. Rajeev R. Sharma for Petitioner; Mr. R.P. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 9, 10, 11; Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate, for Respondent No. 2; Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate, for Respondent No. 3
M/s. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd.
Bhalchandra D. Patil, Smt. Anandibai Anant Patil, Narendra Anant Patil, Prafull Anant Patil, Vikas Anant Patil, Bharat Anant Patil, Legal Heirs of Haji Ali Mohammad Kasum, Court Receiver High Court Bombay, Tahsildar @ Agricultural Lands Tribunal Borivali, Collector (Mumbai Suburban District), State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting a revision application against the orders of the Collector and Tahsildar which had allowed the respondents' application for declaration of tenancy and fixing of purchase price under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the MRT order dated 28-04-2017 and the orders of the Tahsildar and Collector, and a declaration that the respondents are not tenants of the suit property.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the respondents were wrongly declared tenants by the revenue authorities based on fabricated mutation entries and insufficient evidence, and that the petitioner had acquired title to the suit property through a court-conducted auction sale, making the tenancy claims invalid.
Previous Decisions
Tahsildar's order dated 02-12-2013 allowed the respondents' application under section 32G; Collector's order dated 05-02-2015 dismissed the appeal; MRT's order dated 28-04-2017 dismissed the revision application.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in dismissing the revision application and confirming the orders declaring the respondents as tenants and fixing purchase price under the MTAL Act.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 28 th April,2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Tenancy Revision Application No. 23 of 2015...
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent nos. 1 to 6 did not have any title over the suit land and to enter into any such consent terms and to handover the alleged possession to the said Mr.Tejura.
On 29 th July, 2013, the statement of respondent no.1 was recorded by the learned Tahsildar. It was stated by the respondent no.1 in the said statement that the suit property was mutated in the name of one Moreshwar Dharman Patil without proving the nexus between the respondents and Moreshwar Dharman Patil.
Procedural History
The suit property originally belonged to Haji Ali Mohammed Haji Cassum who died in 1946; his legal heirs filed administrative suit in High Court; court receiver appointed in 1950; court directed sale of land by auction; on 30-03-1962, auction confirmed in favour of K. Lalchand; petitioner nominated; respondent nos. 1-6 filed tenancy application under section 32G before Tahsildar in 2013; Tahsildar allowed on 02-12-2013; petitioner filed appeal before Collector under section 74, dismissed on 05-02-2015; revision before MRT under section 76, dismissed on 28-04-2017; writ petition filed under Article 227.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 32G, 32M, 74, 76
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XL Rule 1(d)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
