Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Maroti Mahadeo Deosthan (a temple trust), filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 03/06/2016 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal had allowed the revision application filed by respondents No.1 to 3 (Madhukar, Chirkut, and Parbata) and set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Umred, thereby restoring the order of the Tahasildar, Umred, which declared the respondents as tenants of the land in question. The land, situated in survey No.113 (Gat No.247), admeasuring 10.94 Acres in village Heoti, Tahasil Umred, District Nagpur, belonged to the petitioner trust. The respondents claimed that their predecessor, Sahadeo Wankhede, was a tenant and in possession of the land as on 01/04/1963 (Tiller's day) under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The Tahasildar had initiated suo motu proceedings and, after inquiry, declared the respondents as tenants. The Sub Divisional Officer, on appeal by the petitioner, set aside the Tahasildar's order, holding that the respondents failed to prove tenancy. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in revision, restored the Tahasildar's order. The High Court examined the provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 8 and 12, and the evidence on record. The court noted that the burden of proof was on the respondents to establish that their predecessor was a tenant on the tiller's day. The revenue entries relied upon by the respondents only showed possession, not tenancy. The petitioner had produced evidence to show that the land was owned by the trust and that the respondents' predecessor was not a tenant. The court held that the Tribunal erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Sub Divisional Officer without properly appreciating the evidence. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and restored the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, thereby dismissing the tenancy claim of the respondents.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Burden of Proof - Section 8 of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - The burden lies on the person claiming tenancy to prove that he was a tenant on the tiller's day (01/04/1963). Mere revenue entries do not conclusively establish tenancy; they raise a rebuttable presumption. The landlord can lead evidence to show that the person was not a tenant. (Paras 8-12) B) Tenancy Law - Suo Motu Proceedings - Section 8 of the Act - The Tahasildar can initiate suo motu proceedings for determination of tenancy. However, such proceedings must be based on material on record and not on mere assumptions. The Tahasildar must record reasons for initiating proceedings. (Paras 4-6) C) Tenancy Law - Revision - Section 12 of the Act - The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has revisional powers to set aside orders of the Sub Divisional Officer. However, the Tribunal must exercise its jurisdiction judiciously and not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or based on no evidence. (Paras 13-15) D) Tenancy Law - Presumption of Tenancy - Section 8 of the Act - The presumption of tenancy from revenue entries is rebuttable. The landlord can show that the person in possession was not a tenant but a trespasser or licensee. The court must examine the entire evidence to determine the nature of possession. (Paras 10-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in allowing the revision application and restoring the order of the Tahasildar declaring the respondents as tenants, without properly considering the evidence and the provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 03/06/2016, and restored the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 30/09/2015, thereby dismissing the tenancy claim of respondents No.1 to 3.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on tenant to establish tenancy
- Suo motu proceedings under Section 8 of the Act
- Presumption of tenancy from revenue entries
- Rebuttal of presumption by landlord
- Scope of revision under Section 12 of the Act
