Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of tenants Ganpati Kundlik Kurule and Abaji Ramji Jadhav, challenged the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Beed, cancelling mutation entries in respect of agricultural lands situated at Mouje Talegaon, District Beed. The mutation entries were based on a certificate dated 01.09.1960 issued under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, which recorded the tenants as occupants after deposit of occupancy price. The petitioners had inherited the lands through succession, and their names were duly recorded in the revenue records. Respondent No.2, Shaikh Sabiya Anjum Shakil, claiming to be the purchaser of the land from the original landlord, filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking cancellation of the certificate and mutation entries. The Tahsildar, without issuing notice to the petitioners, allowed the application and cancelled the certificate and all mutation entries. The petitioners contended that the Tahsildar had no jurisdiction to cancel a certificate issued under the 1950 Act, and that the order was passed in violation of natural justice. The court held that the Tahsildar exceeded his jurisdiction as the power to cancel such a certificate lies only with the Revenue Tribunal or a civil court. The order was also set aside for being passed without notice and without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The court quashed the impugned order and directed restoration of the mutation entries as they existed prior to the order.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities - Cancellation of Certificate under Section 38(E) - The Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to cancel a certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, as such power is not conferred under the Act or the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The certificate can only be challenged before the Revenue Tribunal or a civil court. (Paras 7-10) B) Revenue Law - Mutation Entries - Cancellation Without Notice - The Tahsildar's order cancelling mutation entries without issuing notice to the petitioners and without following the procedure under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure - Bar of Jurisdiction - Title Disputes - Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, which are within the exclusive domain of civil courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tahsildar's order purporting to decide title is without jurisdiction. (Para 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to cancel a certificate issued under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, and consequently cancel mutation entries in revenue records.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order dated 04.09.2025 passed by the Tahsildar, Beed, and directed restoration of the mutation entries as they existed prior to the impugned order. The court held that the Tahsildar lacked jurisdiction to cancel the certificate under Section 38(E) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1950, and the order was passed without notice and in violation of natural justice.
Law Points
- Tahsildar lacks jurisdiction to cancel certificate under Section 38(E) of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act
- 1950
- Mutation entries cannot be cancelled without following procedure under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908 bars revenue authorities from adjudicating title disputes
