Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Vitthal Maruti Bulunge, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 29 December 1999 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), Pune, in Revision Application No. MRT NSII4/92 (B22/92). The MRT had confirmed the orders of the two revenue authorities below, which had rejected the petitioner's claim for possession of agricultural land Gat No. 925, admeasuring 0.16 ares, situated at Village Surur, Taluka Wai, District Satara. The land was originally sold to the petitioner's father, Maruti Ganapati Bulunge, as Karta of a Joint Hindu Family under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BTAL Act) on 15 January 1962. Mutation Entry No. 4058 was effected on 15 June 1963, recording the father's name as 'Kabjedar' in the revenue records. In 1965-1966, a consolidation scheme was implemented in the village, resulting in three different parts of the suit land. The petitioner claimed that he and his father continued to be in possession and cultivated the land, but the respondents (the State and the legal heirs of Shamrao Ganpati Bulunge) disputed this. The petitioner filed proceedings before the revenue authorities seeking possession, but his claim was rejected. He then filed a revision before the MRT, which was dismissed as time-barred and on merits. The High Court heard the petition and examined the admitted facts. The court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence of cultivation or payment of rent to establish his tenancy. The mere entry in the revenue records as 'Kabjedar' was not sufficient to prove that he was a tenant entitled to purchase the land under Section 32G. The court also observed that the petitioner did not challenge the consolidation scheme or claim any rights over the new plots, indicating abandonment of his claim. The High Court held that the burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish his status, and the petitioner had not discharged that burden. The court further noted that the revision before the MRT was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly 30 years, and the petitioner offered no explanation for the delay. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the revenue authorities and the MRT.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Deemed Purchase - Section 32G Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Burden of Proof - The petitioner claimed to be a deemed purchaser of agricultural land based on a sale deed executed in 1962 and mutation entry. The court held that the burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish that he was a tenant and entitled to purchase the land. Mere entry in revenue records as 'Kabjedar' does not confer tenancy rights. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence of cultivation or payment of rent. (Paras 3-5) B) Tenancy Law - Consolidation Scheme - Effect on Tenancy Rights - The suit land was subject to a consolidation scheme in 1965-1966, resulting in three different parts. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the consolidation or claim any rights over the new plots. The failure to do so indicated abandonment of any claim. (Para 3) C) Tenancy Law - Revision - Limitation - The petitioner filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) after a delay of nearly 30 years from the original orders. The MRT dismissed the revision as time-barred and on merits. The High Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the petitioner had no explanation for the inordinate delay and no substantive right was established. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to possession of the suit land as a deemed purchaser under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether the orders of the revenue authorities and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are correct.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the orders of the revenue authorities and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove his status as a tenant or deemed purchaser, and the revision was rightly dismissed as time-barred.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on tenant to establish deemed purchase
- Section 32G Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Revenue entries not conclusive proof of tenancy
- Consolidation scheme effect on tenancy rights
- Limitation for filing revision before MRT
