Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of agricultural land, challenged an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated 16 August 1993 which held that no revision lies against an order passed under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946. The respondent No.1, a public trust, had applied for an exemption certificate under Section 88B, which was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23 April 1993. The petitioners filed a revision before the MRT, which returned the application for presentation to the proper authority, holding that a revision is not maintainable. The High Court considered two issues: whether tenants are entitled to notice in Section 88B proceedings, and whether a revision lies against a certificate under Section 88B. The court noted that a learned single judge in Shrimant Jagdeorao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar (1979 Mh.L.J.687) had held that no notice is required and no revision lies, relying on Maneksha Ardeshir Irani v. Manekji Edulji Mistry (AIR 1974 SC 2123). However, a Division Bench in Kerba Dattu Borachate v. Sheshashai & Vishnu Trust had overruled that view, holding that the reliance on Ardeshir Irani was inaccurate and that tenants are necessary parties. The High Court followed the Division Bench, holding that Section 88B proceedings involve a lis between the trust and the tenants, and tenants must be given notice. Consequently, a revision lies against the order granting the certificate. The court set aside the MRT order and remanded the revision application for hearing on merits.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Notice to Tenants - Section 88B Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 - Proceedings under Section 88B involve a lis between the trust and the tenants, and tenants are entitled to notice before grant of exemption certificate - Held that the earlier view in Shrimant Jagdeorao Pawar that no notice is required is not good law (Paras 3-4). B) Tenancy Law - Revision - Section 88B Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946 - A revision lies against an order granting certificate under Section 88B as the proceedings are quasi-judicial and affect rights of tenants - Held that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in holding that no revision lies (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether notice is required to be given to tenants in proceedings under Section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1946, and whether a revision lies against a certificate issued under Section 88B.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 16 August 1993, and directed the MRT to hear the revision application on merits.
Law Points
- Notice to tenants required in Section 88B proceedings
- Revision lies against Section 88B certificate
- Section 88B proceedings involve lis between trust and tenants
