Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of the original landholder Damodar, challenged a judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 16 March 2022. The MRT had allowed a revision filed by the respondent, Sunanda Suhas Ghungurde, setting aside orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) dated 8 March 2004 and the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) dated 5 September 2002. The ALT and SDO had concurrently held that the respondent was not a tenant in respect of Gat No.547/1 admeasuring 16 H. 13 R. The MRT, in revision, reappreciated the evidence and reversed those findings. The High Court held that the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings, as the concurrent findings were not perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the MRT's order, and restored the orders of the ALT and SDO.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal - Scope of Revision - The MRT, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the MRT set aside concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO that the respondent was a tenant, by reappreciating documentary evidence, which was beyond its jurisdiction. (Paras 2-3)
B) Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship - Burden of Proof - The initial burden to prove tenancy lies on the claimant, but once evidence is led, the authority must assess it. Here, the ALT and SDO had correctly held that the respondent failed to prove tenancy, and the MRT erred in reversing those findings without jurisdictional error. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 by reappreciating evidence and setting aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the MRT order dated 16 March 2022, and restored the orders of the ALT dated 5 September 2002 and the SDO dated 8 March 2004.
Law Points
- Tenancy
- Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal
- Reappreciation of Evidence
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Sections 70(b) and 76
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 4681 of 2023
Mr. Prafulla Shah, a/w Gunjan Shah, for the Petitioners; Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, a/w Sumit Sonare, for the Respondent
Sahebrao Dhondiba Gaikwad (since deceased through LRs) and Vishnu Dhondiba Gaikwad
Smt. Sunanda Suhas Ghungurde
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a tenancy revision.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the MRT order and restore the orders of the ALT and SDO.
Filing Reason
The MRT allowed the respondent's revision and set aside concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO that the respondent was not a tenant.
Previous Decisions
ALT order dated 5 September 2002 in Tenancy Application No.39 of 1990; SDO order dated 8 March 2004 in T&C Appeal No.2 of 2003; MRT order dated 16 March 2022 in Revision No.T/R/P/1/2005.
Issues
Whether the MRT exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence.
Whether the concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO were perverse or based on no evidence.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the MRT acted beyond its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings.
Respondent argued that the MRT correctly exercised its jurisdiction to correct errors apparent on record.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, cannot reappreciate evidence and substitute its own findings unless the findings of the lower authorities are perverse or based on no evidence. In this case, the concurrent findings of the ALT and SDO were not perverse, and the MRT exceeded its jurisdiction.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners take exception to a judgment and order dated 16th March, 2022 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, (MRT) in Revision No.T/R/P/1/2005, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent came to be allowed by setting aside the orders passed by the SDO in T&C Appeal No.2 of 2003 dated 8th March, 2004 and the order dated 5th September, 2002 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) in Tenancy Application No.39 of 1990.
Procedural History
The ALT passed an order on 5 September 2002 in Tenancy Application No.39 of 1990. The SDO allowed an appeal on 8 March 2004 in T&C Appeal No.2 of 2003. The respondent filed a revision before the MRT, which was allowed on 16 March 2022. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 70(b), 76
