Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 6 July 1998 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Case No. MRT/P.VIII7/95 (B136/95). The Tribunal had allowed a revision and set aside the concurrent findings of the lower authorities fixing the price of the suit land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (MTAL Act). The suit land, Gat No. 1918 admeasuring 1 Hectare 51 Ares, situated at Village Kendur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune, was originally owned by Vithoba Dev (Devasthan) of Sali Community. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, Shripati Ganpati Tikande, was a protected tenant in the land since 1929-1930, as evidenced by revenue records and mutation entries. After Shripati's death in 1963 without issue, his legal heirs (the petitioners and their predecessors) were recorded as tenants by mutation entry No. 10852 in 1965. The respondent-trust, registered under the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act on 17 July 1991, claimed ownership and challenged the price fixation proceedings. The lower authorities (the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector) had concurrently fixed the purchase price of the land in favor of the petitioners. The Tribunal, in revision, set aside these findings. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Tribunal had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without establishing that the concurrent findings were perverse or contrary to law. The High Court restored the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and set aside the Tribunal's order. The petition was allowed, and the civil application was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Price Fixation under Section 32G - Revisional Jurisdiction - The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings without establishing that the concurrent findings of the lower authorities were perverse or contrary to law. The High Court restored the concurrent findings fixing the purchase price of the suit land. (Paras 1-6) B) Tenancy Law - Protected Tenant - Succession - The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners was a protected tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1939, and after his death without issue, his legal heirs (brothers' sons) were rightly recorded as tenants by mutation entry. The respondent-trust, as owner, could not challenge the tenancy status after decades. (Paras 3-4) C) Tenancy Law - Concurrent Findings - Interference by Revisional Court - The revisional court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. The Tribunal's order was set aside as it failed to demonstrate any perversity in the findings of the lower authorities. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of the lower authorities fixing the price of the suit land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 6 July 1998, and restored the concurrent findings of the lower authorities fixing the price of the suit land under Section 32G of the MTAL Act. The civil application was disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Revisional jurisdiction under Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Section 32G price fixation
- Scope of interference by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Perversity as ground for revision
