Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to agricultural land bearing old Survey No. 16/4, admeasuring 12-29-00 H.R., with Pot Kharaba of 1-71-00 H.R., now bearing Gat No. 219/4, situated at Village Shirdhon, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The Petitioners in both writ petitions claimed to be purchasers of the land from the original landlady Smt. Shardabai Ganesh Oze and challenged orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and subordinate authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Respondent Nos. 2 to 15 claimed tenancy rights through their predecessor Late Shri Gorya Posha Vajekar, who had filed an application under Section 32-G in 1964. The A.L.T. postponed that proceeding because the landlady was a widow. After the death of the original tenant, his legal heirs were brought on record. On 17 August 2006, Mahadu Nathu Vajekar filed an application under Section 70(b) on behalf of the claimed tenants, while earlier he had sought deletion of their names from revenue record. The Petitioners contended that the claimed tenants had no valid tenancy rights and that the proceedings were pursued by persons lacking lawful authority due to successive and revoked powers of attorney. On 22 February 2011, the A.L.T., Panvel, fixed the purchase price in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 under Section 32-G. Respondent No. 1 appealed to the Sub Divisional Officer, Panvel, which dismissed the appeal on 24 May 2012. Respondent No. 1 then filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was admitted on 18 June 2012 with stay. Meanwhile, the Petitioners had filed Special Civil Suit No. 329 of 2012 and obtained a status quo order on 7 August 2012. On 26 August 2013, the Petitioners sought intervention in the revision. On 3 April 2014, a General Power of Attorney holder filed a pursis for withdrawal of the revision, which the Tribunal permitted. The Collector, Raigad, passed an order on 12 May 2014. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision on 29 March 2016, confirming the lower orders. In Writ Petition No. 6409 of 2018, the Petitioners challenged the order dated 7 March 2017, by which the MRT dismissed their application for continuation of status quo, observing that after permission under Section 43, sale deed was executed and main revision was disposed of finally. The Petitioners contended that the proceedings were nullities due to invalid power of attorney and non-compliance with mandatory requirements. The present judgment text ends mid-narrative without recording the Court's final decision.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Determination of Purchase Price - Postponement and Subsequent Fixation - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 32-G - The original application under Section 32-G was filed in 1964 but postponed because the landlady was a widow; on 22 February 2011 the A.L.T. fixed the purchase price in favour of Respondent Nos. 2 to 13 despite pending Section 70(b) application and alleged procedural lapses. The SDO dismissed the appeal on 24 May 2012 and the MRT dismissed the revision on 29 March 2016 confirming the purchase price (Paras 4-7). B) Tenancy Law - Tenancy Declaration Application - Section 70(b) Proceedings - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 70(b) - Mahadu Nathu Vajekar filed an application under Section 70(b) on 17 August 2006 on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 15, while Petitioners alleged that names of alleged tenants were wrongly entered in revenue record. The A.L.T. issued notices and fixed hearing on 24 August 2006 but no final order under this provision is recorded in the text (Paras 4-6). C) Power of Attorney - Authority to Represent in Tenancy Proceedings - Validity of Successive Powers and Revocation - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Petitioners contended that Shri Dilip Shankar Pawar acted under a Power of Attorney dated 3 October 2006 which was superseded by a later Power of Attorney dated 29 March 2007, and that Shri Mahadu Balu Vajekar appeared despite revocation of his authority. These contentions formed part of the challenge to the A.L.T. and SDO orders as nullities and without lawful authority (Paras 5, 7-8). D) Civil Procedure - Interim Injunction and Status Quo - Effect of Final Disposal and Sale Deed Execution - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 - Petitioners obtained a status quo order from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel on 7 August 2012 in Special Civil Suit No. 329 of 2012, and later sought continuation of status quo before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The MRT dismissed the application on 7 March 2017 observing that after permission under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, Sale Deed was executed and main Revision was disposed of finally (Paras 2, 12). E) Revenue Tribunal Procedure - Withdrawal of Revision by Power of Attorney Holder - Intervention and Compliance with Notice - Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal - Revision Application No. 243 of 2012 was admitted and stay granted on 18 June 2012; Petitioners sought intervention on 26 August 2013 and were directed to serve Respondents. On 3 April 2014, a General Power of Attorney holder filed a pursis for withdrawal without giving notice to Petitioners, and the Tribunal permitted withdrawal, which Petitioners challenged (Paras 9, 12-13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and subordinate authorities under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were sustainable; whether the proceedings under Section 32-G and Section 70(b) were validly pursued by persons holding lawful authority; and whether status quo could be continued after final disposal and execution of sale deed under Section 43.
Law Points
- Proceedings under Section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948 postponed when landlady is a widow
- purchase price determination requires valid inquiry and authority
- application under Section 70(b) determines tenancy rights
- power of attorney validity essential for representation
- status quo not maintainable after final disposal and execution of sale deed under Section 43.
