Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Abdul Rajtak Abdul Rehman Mulla and Nurmohamed Abdul Rehman Mulla, are brothers and sons of the original landlord Abdul Rehman Mulla, who died in 1958. Their mother Jainabai re-married in 1961 and moved to another village. Jainabai's sister Mariyam is the mother of the respondent, Ibrahim Yusuf Lambe. The dispute concerns survey nos.12/4, 13/9, 23/5, and 30/22A of village Jambhori, taluka and district Ratnagiri. The respondent had been in cultivating possession of these lands and also looked after other lands of the petitioners' father at village Vatad. The respondent applied for being declared a tenant under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Extra-Aval Karkun held him to be a tenant. The petitioners appealed, and the appeal was heard by the Collector, Ratnagiri, who held that the respondent was not a tenant by order dated 23.3.1977. Both parties applied for revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT). The MRT, by order dated 30.11.1992, reversed the Collector's finding and held the respondent to be a tenant. The petitioners challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the MRT had remanded the matter five times previously. The court observed that the MRT's order did not consider the fact that the respondent was a close relative of the petitioners' mother and had been looking after the lands, which could indicate that his possession was not as a tenant but as a relative. The court also noted that the MRT failed to consider the respondent's possession of other lands. The High Court set aside the MRT order and remanded the matter back to the MRT for fresh consideration, directing the MRT to consider all relevant evidence and pass a reasoned order.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Declaration of Tenancy - Section 70(b) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The respondent applied for being declared a tenant under Section 70(b) of the Act. The Extra-Aval Karkun held him to be a tenant, but the Collector reversed that finding. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed the Collector's order without properly considering the evidence, including the fact that the respondent was a close relative of the petitioners' mother and had been looking after the lands. The High Court set aside the MRT order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 1-6) B) Tenancy Law - Revisional Powers - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - The MRT, in exercise of its revisional powers, must consider all relevant evidence and cannot ignore material facts. The MRT's order was set aside as it failed to consider the relationship between the parties and the respondent's possession of other lands. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in reversing the finding of the fact-finding authority that the respondent was not a tenant under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, without properly considering the evidence on record.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30.11.1992, and remanded the matter back to the MRT for fresh consideration. The MRT was directed to consider all relevant evidence and pass a reasoned order.
Law Points
- Tenancy declaration under Section 70(b) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Revisional powers of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- Duty to consider all relevant evidence
- Remand for fresh consideration
