Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the original landlady Smt. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi, challenged the order dated 20th March 1991 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No. MRT/NS/IV/3/89. The respondent, Vithoba Babaji Bhagat, is the tenant of the suit land situated at Village Pal, Taluka Karad, District Satara. The original landlady was a widow on the tiller's day (1st April 1957) and expired on 28th December 1968, leaving her daughter Parubai Sampat Yadav as the sole legal representative. Parubai executed a Will in favor of the petitioners, who thus acquired ownership. Parubai expired on 3rd April 1977. The tenancy proceedings commenced in 1961 under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Additional Tahsildar, Karad, by order dated 30th July 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227, and the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, by order dated 4th January 1989 in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987, passed concurrent orders in favor of the landlady. The respondent filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which set aside the concurrent orders and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The petitioners challenged this remand order. The High Court held that the Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and the legal position regarding a widow's right to terminate tenancy under Section 31 of the Act. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Revenue Tribunal, and restored the orders of the lower authorities.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Termination of Tenancy - Widow's Right - Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The landlady, a widow on the tiller's day, sought termination of tenancy for personal cultivation. The lower authorities concurrently held in her favor. The Revenue Tribunal remanded the matter without considering the merits. Held that the Tribunal erred in not appreciating the concurrent findings and the legal position regarding a widow's right to terminate tenancy. (Paras 1-4)
B) Tenancy Law - Remand Order - Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal - Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - The Revenue Tribunal set aside concurrent orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Tahsildar and remanded the case for fresh inquiry. Held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not examining the correctness of the concurrent findings and by ordering a remand without proper justification. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of the lower authorities and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry without considering the merits of the case.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 20th March 1991, and restored the orders of the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, dated 30th July 1984 and the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, dated 4th January 1989.
Law Points
- Tenancy Act
- Widow's right to terminate tenancy
- Concurrent findings
- Remand order
- Jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal
Case Details
Writ Petition No. 2721 of 1991
Shri S.G. Karandikar holding for Shri V.B. Rajure for the petitioners; Shri Prafulla B. Shah for the respondent
Smt. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi (since deceased) through her heirs and legal representatives
Vithoba Babaji Bhagat (Salunkhe) through Power of Attorney Krishna Vithoba Bhagat
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal setting aside concurrent findings of lower authorities and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry in a tenancy dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and restore the concurrent orders of the lower authorities in their favor.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the remand order of the Revenue Tribunal which set aside the concurrent findings of the Sub Divisional Officer and Additional Tahsildar that had allowed the termination of tenancy in favor of the landlady.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Tahsildar, Karad, by order dated 30th July 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227, and the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, by order dated 4th January 1989 in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987, passed concurrent orders in favor of the landlady. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, by order dated 20th March 1991 in Revision Application No. MRT/NS/IV/3/89, set aside those orders and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in setting aside concurrent findings of the lower authorities and remanding the matter for fresh inquiry without considering the merits of the case.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Revenue Tribunal erred in not considering the concurrent findings of the lower authorities and the legal position regarding a widow's right to terminate tenancy under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
The respondent contended that the remand order was justified as the lower authorities had not properly considered the evidence.
Ratio Decidendi
The Revenue Tribunal, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, ought not to have set aside concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower authorities without properly appreciating the legal position and the merits of the case. The Tribunal's order of remand was not justified as it failed to consider that the landlady, being a widow on the tiller's day, was entitled to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation under Section 31 of the Act.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, on 20th March, 1991 in the Revision Application No.MRT/NS/IV/3/89 filed by the respondent against the concurrent orders passed by the lower authorities...
The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant in relation to the suit land...
The proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Tenancy Act which had commenced in the year 1961...
Procedural History
The tenancy proceedings commenced in 1961. The Additional Tahsildar, Karad, passed an order on 30th July 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227 in favor of the landlady. The respondent appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, who dismissed the appeal by order dated 4th January 1989 in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987, affirming the Tahsildar's order. The respondent then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, which by order dated 20th March 1991 in Revision Application No. MRT/NS/IV/3/89 set aside the concurrent orders and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The petitioners challenged this remand order by filing Writ Petition No. 2721 of 1991 before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Section 31, Section 76
