Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Purushottam Devidas Yogi and others, are the owners of field survey no. 35, admeasuring 4 Hectors 63 Ares, situated in Mouza Pokhari, Tahsil Pusad, District Yavatmal. They alleged that one Tatya Motiram Kamble was permitted to look after the land by carrying out agricultural operations. Tatya expired on 14.02.1988. After his death, his name was mutated in the revenue records as an occupier with tenancy rights. The petitioners challenged this mutation entry under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. On 22.01.2007, the Tahsildar passed an order noting that the legal heirs of Tatya Kamble expressed a desire to seek a declaration of tenancy rights, and the application was not prosecuted. However, the mutation entry continued. The petitioners filed fresh proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar for deletion of the entry. The Tahsildar dismissed the application on 06.09.2008. The Sub Divisional Officer, in appeal under Section 247 of the Code, allowed the appeal on 16.07.2013 and directed deletion of the mutation entry. Respondent nos. 4 to 7, the legal heirs of Tatya Kamble, filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. The Tribunal reversed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restored the order of the Tahsildar. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court found that the Tribunal had not considered the fact that the petitioners were the owners of the land and that the tenancy rights claimed by the respondents were not established. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in reversing the well-reasoned order of the Sub Divisional Officer. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed, the order of the Tribunal was quashed and set aside, and the order of the Sub Divisional Officer was restored. Rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Mutation Entry - Deletion of Entry - Section 111 of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 - The petitioners, owners of the land, challenged a mutation entry recording tenancy rights in favour of the deceased Tatya Kamble's legal heirs. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal and directed deletion of the entry. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed that order. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to consider that the petitioners were the owners and that the tenancy claim was not established. The order of the Tribunal was set aside and that of the Sub Divisional Officer restored. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer deleting the mutation entry of tenancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of Tatya Kamble.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30.01.2015 is quashed and set aside. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.07.2013 is restored. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1958
- Section 111
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- 1966
- Section 247
- Mutation Entry
- Tenancy Rights
- Revision
- Revenue Tribunal
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (07) 113
Writ Petition No. 1548 of 2015
Mr. R.D. Wakode for Petitioners, Ms. T. Khan for Respondent Nos.1 to 3, Mr. R.J. Shinde for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7
Purushottam Devidas Yogi, Yadav Devidas Yogi, Prakash Devidas Yogi, Ashok Devidas Yogi
The Sub Divisional Officer, Pusad; The Circle Officer, Mouza Pokhari; The Naib Tahsildar, Pusad; Shekorao Tatya Kamble; Vasant Tatya Kamble; Pandurang Tatya Kamble; Shrawan Tatya Kamble
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a revision application under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30.01.2015 and restoration of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 16.07.2013 directing deletion of the mutation entry.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which reversed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restored the mutation entry of tenancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of Tatya Kamble.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar dismissed the petitioners' application for deletion of mutation entry on 06.09.2008. The Sub Divisional Officer allowed the appeal on 16.07.2013 and directed deletion. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed the Sub Divisional Officer's order on 30.01.2015.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in reversing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer deleting the mutation entry of tenancy rights.
Whether the petitioners, as owners of the land, were entitled to deletion of the mutation entry recording tenancy rights in favour of the legal heirs of Tatya Kamble.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that they are the owners of the land and that Tatya Kamble was only permitted to look after the land, not a tenant. The mutation entry was wrongly made after his death.
The respondents (legal heirs) contended that they had tenancy rights and the mutation entry was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in reversing the order of the Sub Divisional Officer without considering that the petitioners were the owners of the land and that the tenancy rights claimed by the respondents were not established. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer was well-reasoned and based on the evidence on record.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revision Application preferred by respondent nos. 4 to 7 in proceedings under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958.
The Sub Divisional Officer however, allowed the appeal filed under Section 247 of the Code and by order dated 16.07.2013, directed deletion of the mutation entry.
The Tribunal has not considered the fact that the petitioners are the owners of the land and that the tenancy rights claimed by the respondents were not established.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar for deletion of mutation entry, which was dismissed on 06.09.2008. They appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, who allowed the appeal on 16.07.2013. The respondents filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958, which was allowed on 30.01.2015, reversing the Sub Divisional Officer's order. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958: 111
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966: 247
