Case Note & Summary
The petitioners were legal heirs of late Suryabhan Shravan Raut, who was a tenant of the respondent Trust cultivating survey number 251 at Bhatkuli, Amravati. The Trust obtained an exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, on 22/4/1963. In 2016, the Trust initiated proceedings under Section 120(c) of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer. During those proceedings, in October 2017, the petitioners became aware of the exemption certificate and decided to challenge it by filing a revision under Section 111 of the Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, along with an application for condonation of delay. The revision was filed on 5/3/2018, with a delay of 54 years and 256 days calculated from the date of the certificate. The petitioners claimed the delay should be counted from their date of knowledge in 2017. The Trust opposed, contending that the original tenant, during his lifetime in 1964, had filed proceedings for transfer of land in which he admitted the existence of the exemption certificate, and those proceedings were rejected in 1968. The petitioners challenged the authenticity of the 1964 proceedings and sought permission to refer documents to a handwriting expert. The Tribunal, without deciding the handwriting expert application, held that the documents were not required to be referred and that the delay was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained, and rejected the condonation application. The petitioners filed the present writ petition. The High Court examined the grounds, including the contention that the exemption certificate lacked a case number and that no notice was given to the tenant. The Trust produced records showing the case number 38/59(20)/Kholapur/59-60. On the notice issue, the court relied on Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar, 1979 Mh.L.J. 687, which held that notice to the tenant is not required when issuing an exemption certificate to a trust. The court found no error in the Tribunal’s order, noting that the delay was inordinate and that the earlier proceeding indicated the original tenant’s awareness. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Tribunal’s order was upheld.
Headnote
A) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Revision under Section 111 - Condonation of Delay - The legal representatives of a tenant sought revision in 2018 challenging an exemption certificate issued under Section 129(b) in 1963, claiming they gained knowledge only in 2017 - The Tribunal found the delay of 54 years and 256 days inordinate and not condoned, as earlier proceedings in 1964 showed that the original tenant was aware of the exemption certificate - Held that no error was committed by the Tribunal in rejecting the condonation application (Paras 2-8).
B) Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Exemption Certificate under Section 129(b) - Notice to Tenant - The law laid down in Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar, 1979 Mh.L.J. 687, holds that while issuing an exemption certificate to a trust, notice to the tenant is not required, as the inquiry is between the Trust and the Collector; the certificate acts as conclusive evidence of satisfaction of conditions under Section 129(b) - Held that the petitioners' challenge based on absence of notice was unsustainable (Para 11).
C) Evidence - Handwriting Expert - Application for Reference - The tenants applied to refer documents to a handwriting expert to challenge authenticity of earlier proceedings, but the Tribunal proceeded to decide condonation of delay without ruling on the application - Held that no prejudice was caused, as the documents were not required to be referred for determination of condonation, and no error was found in the Tribunal's approach (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay in filing the revision under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and whether the tenant was entitled to notice before issuance of exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the said Act.
Final Decision
The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's order rejecting condonation of delay. The delay of 54 years and 256 days was inordinate and not satisfactorily explained. The petitioners' contention that the delay should be computed from the date of knowledge was rejected in light of the 1964 proceedings showing prior knowledge. The Court also upheld the validity of the exemption certificate without notice to the tenant based on the precedent set in Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar. The writ petition was dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs mentioned.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act
- 1958
- notice to tenant not mandatory in inquiry for exemption certificate
- inordinate delay of 54 years not condoned
- limitation runs from date of certificate and not from knowledge
- earlier proceeding showed tenant was aware of certificate
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 175
WRIT PETITION NO. 2845 OF 2020
Mr. Harish D. Dangre, Ms. A. H. Dangre (for Petitioners), Mr. Sachin S. Deshpande (for Respondent Nos.2 and 3), Ms. S. N. Thakur, AGP (for Respondent No.1/State)
Digambar Suryabhan Raut (Since deceased through LRs: Ashok Digambar Raut, Rajkanya w/o Rajkumar Mohade, Suresh Digambar Raut), Bisen Suryabhan Raut, Janrao Kisanrao Raut, Rangarao Kisanrao Raut (Since deceased through LRs: Saraswati wd/o Rangrao Raut, Rajesh Rangrao Raut, Mira w/o Narendra Umale, Pratibha w/o Sunil Mohod, Jyoti w/o Mangesh Ingale, Yogesh Rangrao Raut), Dilip Kisanrao Raut, Bahuli Suryabhan Tathod
State of Maharashtra through Sub Divisional Officer, Teosa, Bhatkuli, District Amravati; Masjid and Madarsa Kazipura, Regd. No.B-73/Kholapur, Through its Vice President Syed Ahmed Khan Gulam Mustafa Khan; Masjid Kazipura and Madarsa of Kholapur Regn. No. 7/1958
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition challenging the order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rejecting condonation of delay in filing revision under Section 111 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, against an exemption certificate granted under Section 129(b) of the said Act.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 17/2/2020 and condonation of delay to enable hearing of the revision on merits, also sought stay of proceedings under Section 120(c) of the Act.
Filing Reason
The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, discovered in October 2017 that the respondent Trust held an exemption certificate dated 22/4/1963 under Section 129(b), which they wished to challenge, but the revision was delayed by 54 years and 256 days; the Tribunal refused to condone the delay.
Previous Decisions
The Sub-Divisional Officer, Tiosa-Bhatkuli, was hearing proceedings under Section 120(c) initiated by the Trust in 2016. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, by order dated 17/2/2020 in Tenancy Revision No. Misc/TNC/AMR-14/2018, rejected the petitioners' application for condonation of delay.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in rejecting the condonation of delay application without deciding the handwriting expert application?
Whether the delay of 54 years and 256 days in challenging the exemption certificate could be condoned based on the ground that the petitioners acquired knowledge only in 2017?
Whether the exemption certificate issued under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, was valid despite absence of notice to the tenant?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the delay should be counted from the date they gained knowledge of the exemption certificate in October 2017, not from the date of its issuance in 1963, and that the earlier proceedings of 1964 were forged and should be referred to a handwriting expert.
Respondent Trust contended that the original tenant was aware of the exemption certificate during his lifetime, as he filed proceedings in 1964 admitting its existence, and those proceedings were decided in 1968, establishing prior knowledge. They also argued that the law at the relevant time did not require notice to the tenant for issuance of an exemption certificate.
Petitioners further submitted that the exemption certificate lacked a case number and was issued without notice to the tenant or their predecessors, rendering it invalid.
Respondent Trust produced records showing the exemption certificate proceedings bore case number 38/59(20)/Kholapur/59-60, and relied on the decision in Shrimant Jagdeorao Anandrao Pawar v. Kisan Namdeo Pawar, 1979 Mh. L. J. 687, to assert that notice to tenant is not mandatory.
Ratio Decidendi
When a party seeks condonation of delay in challenging an exemption certificate under Section 129(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and the record shows that the predecessor was aware of the certificate and participated in earlier proceedings acknowledging it, a plea of lack of knowledge cannot be sustained. The law as settled does not require notice to the tenant before issuance of such a certificate, as the inquiry is between the Trust and the Collector, and the certificate is conclusive evidence. Inordinate delay of 54 years cannot be condoned without a compelling justification.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners, according to the Petitioners, when this Certificate came on record, for the first time, they got knowledge that the Respondent/Trust is possessing the Certificate under Section 129(b) of the Act of 1958.
The learned Tribunal, without deciding the application for permission to refer the documents to Handwriting Expert, independently proceeded to decide the application for condonation of delay.
the delay of 54 years and 256 days is being an inordinate delay, the Tribunal has rejected the application.
The ratio of these observations on the submission that was made before the Supreme Court clearly indicates that in an inquiry under sub-section (2) of section 88-B notice is not a must and the issue arises between the Trust and the Collector.
Procedural History
Original tenant Suryabhan Shravan Raut cultivated suit land; died in 1973. In 1963, Trust obtained exemption certificate. In 1964, Suryabhan filed proceedings for transfer of land, which were rejected in 1968. In April 2016, Trust initiated proceedings under Section 120(c) before Sub-Divisional Officer. Petitioners (legal heirs of Suryabhan) received notice in May 2016. On 6/10/2017, Trust filed list of documents including the exemption certificate. On 5/3/2018, petitioners filed revision under Section 111 before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal with condonation of delay application. On 17/2/2020, Tribunal rejected condonation of delay. Petitioners filed present writ petition before High Court. Court issued rule and heard parties, dismissing the petition on 8/7/2026.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958: Section 120(c), Section 129(b), Section 111
