Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shobha Daulatrao Bankar, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Member (Administrative) of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Revision Application No. TNC/REV/NSK/56/2004. The Tribunal had set aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Niphad, dated 15.05.2004 in Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 2004 and the Tahsildar and ALT, Niphad, dated 21.12.2002 in Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1999, which had declared the petitioner as a tenant under Section 70(B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing Survey No. 758/14. The petitioner's predecessor had initially filed an application for declaration of tenancy, which was granted on 06.09.1996 but set aside on appeal and remanded. After a second remand, the Tahsildar again declared tenancy on 04.09.1998, but the SDO remanded the matter again. In the third round, the case was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1999. During these proceedings, on 20.10.2000, the landlords made a statement admitting that the petitioner's grandfather, father, and the petitioner had been in lawful cultivation of the land. The remaining landlords consented to this statement. The Tahsildar, relying on this admission, declared the petitioner as a tenant. The SDO upheld this order in appeal. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision, set aside these orders, holding that the tenancy was not proved. The petitioner challenged this before the High Court. The court found that the landlords' admission was clear and unequivocal, constituting conclusive proof of tenancy. The court also noted that purchase price for two other survey numbers (758/12 and 758/13) had been fixed by consent and paid, indicating acceptance of tenancy. The court held that the Revenue Tribunal had erred in ignoring this admission and in reversing the concurrent findings of fact. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the orders of the SDO and Tahsildar were restored.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Declaration of Tenancy - Section 70(B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Admission of Cultivation - The petitioner sought restoration of tenancy declaration after the Revenue Tribunal set aside concurrent findings. The landlords had admitted in their statement on 20.10.2000 that the petitioner's grandfather, father, and the petitioner had been in lawful cultivation of the land. The court held that such admission is conclusive proof of tenancy and cannot be ignored. The Tribunal's order was quashed, and the orders of the lower authorities were restored. (Paras 1-10) B) Tenancy Law - Remand Proceedings - Purchase Price Fixation - The court noted that purchase price for two other survey numbers had been fixed by consent and paid, indicating acceptance of tenancy. The remaining land (Survey No. 758/14) was subject to the same tenancy claim. The court held that the consistent admission by landlords and the payment of purchase price for adjacent lands strengthened the tenancy claim. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in setting aside the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Tahsildar which declared the petitioner as a tenant under Section 70(B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, despite the landlords' admission of lawful cultivation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 07.05.2016 passed by the Member (Administrative) Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Revision Application No. TNC/REV/NSK/56/2004 is quashed and set aside. The order dated 15.05.2004 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Niphad Division, Niphad in Tenancy Appeal No. 3 of 2004 and order dated 21.12.2002 passed by the Tahsildar and ALT, Niphad in Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1999 are restored.
Law Points
- Tenancy declaration
- Section 70(B) Bombay Tenancy Act
- Admission of tenancy
- Conclusive proof
- Remand proceedings
- Purchase price fixation
