Case Note & Summary
The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the order dated 19.09.1997 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in review proceedings, which allowed the landlord's review and set aside the Tribunal's earlier remand order dated 07.02.1996, thereby confirming the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati dated 10.06.1994 and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Indapur dated 16.03.1994. The subject matter was agricultural land bearing Survey No. 8/2 admeasuring 2 Hectares 93 Ares at Village Shaha, Taluka Indapur, District Pune. The petitioner claimed to be the legal representative of the original tenant Narayan Bandu Shendge, while the respondent was the legal heir of the original landlord Pandurang Kondiba Koli. The original tenant had filed an application under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal closed the proceeding on 30.11.1960 on the ground that the landlord had obtained a certificate under Section 88C. The tenant again filed an application under Section 32G in September 1993, which was rejected by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on 16.03.1994, and the appeal was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10.06.1994. The tenant filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which by order dated 07.02.1996 allowed the revision and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The landlord challenged the remand by Writ Petition No. 3209 of 1996, which the High Court dismissed on 11.07.1996, but granted liberty to seek review within three weeks. The landlord filed review on 31.07.1996, and the Tribunal allowed the review on 19.09.1997. The present petition was admitted on 15.06.1998 with a stay on the impugned order. During pendency, the original tenant died, and Nitin Mahadeo Palkhe was brought on record as legal representative. The respondent filed Civil Application No. 2105 of 2014 seeking dismissal of the petition as abated and challenging the locus standi of the present petitioner. The petitioner argued that the first remand order was justified, that the review was filed after delay and based only on a Tahsildar's letter, and that the remand was non-prejudicial. The respondent argued that the sole tenant died leaving 8 daughters who were not brought on record, that the will dated 02.08.2002 was an impermissible assignment under Section 43, that the Section 88C certificate had attained finality making Sections 32 to 32R inapplicable, and that proceedings under Section 33B had been validly initiated. The High Court noted that the impugned review order was passed pursuant to the liberty granted by the earlier High Court order, and therefore no jurisdictional error could be found. It further held that the Tribunal had considered two sufficient aspects: the Tahsildar's certificate dated 31.10.1996 indicating that the landlord had applied for possession on 30.11.1960 and the documents were destroyed, and the unchallenged Section 88C certificate which made Sections 32 to 32R inapplicable. The available excerpt records the court's conclusion that the Tribunal had sufficient reasons to review the order and that no fault could be found with the review; however, the excerpt ends before the final operative direction.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Review Jurisdiction - High Court Liberty - Constitution of India, Articles 226, 227; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Section 76 - The Tribunal's review of its earlier remand order was challenged on the ground of jurisdictional error. The High Court had earlier dismissed Writ Petition No. 3209 of 1996 with liberty to the landlord to seek review within three weeks. Held that since the High Court granted liberty and permitted the Tribunal to consider whether review could be ordered, no fault could be found with the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order; hence, there was no jurisdictional error (Paras 12-13).
B) Tenancy Law - Exemption Certificate under Section 88C - Inapplicability of Sections 32 to 32R - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 32 to 32R, 88C - The landlord held a certificate under Section 88C which was not shown to have been challenged or set aside. The Tribunal in review held that since the certificate under Section 88C was obtained, provisions of Sections 32 to 32R of the Act were not applicable. This was one of the sufficient reasons for allowing the review and confirming the rejection of the tenant's Section 32G application (Paras 14.2-14.3).
C) Tenancy Law - Locus Standi and Abatement - Succession and Assignment of Tenancy Rights - Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, Sections 40, 43 - The respondent landlord challenged the present petitioner's locus standi, arguing that the will dated 02.08.2002 amounted to an assignment of tenancy rights prohibited under Section 43 without Collector's permission, and that under Section 40 only legal heirs could continue as tenant. The petitioner contended that the bar under Section 43 would not apply because the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry. The available excerpt does not record a final determination on this issue (Paras 9.1, 9.2, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its earlier remand order pursuant to the High Court's liberty; whether the Section 88C certificate exempted the land from Sections 32 to 32R; whether the Tahsildar's certificate was sufficient to allow review; whether the present petitioner had locus standi as legatee under a will given the prohibition under Section 43 and succession under Section 40.
Final Decision
The High Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's exercise of review jurisdiction pursuant to the High Court's liberty and observed that the Tribunal had sufficient reasons based on the Tahsildar's certificate and the unchallenged Section 88C certificate. The available excerpt ends before the final operative direction.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction exercised within liberty granted by High Court is not a jurisdictional error
- unchallenged certificate under Section 88C makes Sections 32 to 32R inapplicable
- Tahsildar's certificate indicating filing of Section 33B application in 1960 is sufficient reason for review
- assignment of tenancy rights under will without Collector's permission is prohibited under Section 43
- only legal heirs under Section 40 can continue tenancy
- res judicata bars delayed claims.
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (08) 112
Writ Petition No. 1238 of 1998 with Civil Application Nos. 2105 of 2014 and 1995 of 2019
Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad for the Petitioner; Mr. Dilip Bodake, Mr. Shreeniwas Magar, Mr. Rushikesh Salunkhe for the Respondent
Narayan Bandu Shendge (since deceased) through legal heirs and representatives; Nitin Mahadeo Palkhe
Pandurang Kondiba Koli (since deceased) through legal heirs and representatives; Namdeo Pandurang Koli
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal's review order setting aside an earlier remand order and confirming rejection of the tenant's Section 32G application under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the Tribunal's order dated 19.09.1997 and restoration of the Tribunal's earlier order dated 07.02.1996 which had remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.
Filing Reason
The tenant filed an application under Section 32G for determination of purchase price; the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Officer rejected it; the Tribunal initially allowed the revision and remanded, but the landlord obtained a review which allowed the review and confirmed the rejection.
Previous Decisions
Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Indapur, rejected the Section 32G application on 16.03.1994; Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, rejected the appeal on 10.06.1994; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision and remanded on 07.02.1996; High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 3209 of 1996 on 11.07.1996 with liberty to seek review; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed review on 19.09.1997.
Issues
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had jurisdiction to review its earlier remand order pursuant to the High Court's liberty.
Whether the Section 88C exemption certificate precluded application of Sections 32 to 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Whether the Tahsildar's certificate dated 31.10.1996 was sufficient to justify the review and the finding of pending Section 33B proceedings.
Whether the present petitioner had locus standi as legatee under a will given the prohibition under Section 43 and succession under Section 40.
Whether the petition abated due to failure to bring all legal heirs on record.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the first order of the Tribunal recorded that after obtaining certificate under Section 88C, the landlord had not taken action for terminating tenancy and obtaining possession, so remand was justified and confirmed by High Court.
Petitioner contended that the review was not filed in time and was based solely on a Tahsildar's letter issued in 1996 about existence of a Section 33B application in 1960.
Petitioner submitted that the first order of Tribunal remanding the matter was non-prejudicial and should not have been set aside.
Respondent argued that the petition abated because the sole petitioner-tenant died leaving 8 daughters who were not brought on record despite intimation, and the present petitioner was claiming through a will dated 02.08.2002 which was an impermissible assignment under Section 43.
Respondent contended that the Section 88C certificate had attained finality and was binding, making Sections 32 to 32R inapplicable, and that the landlord had followed due process under Section 33B with proceedings put in abeyance due to encumbrances.
Respondent submitted that the tenant's delayed claim was hit by res judicata and the documents corroborated that Section 32G proceedings were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The exercise of review jurisdiction by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal within the liberty specifically granted by the High Court does not constitute a jurisdictional error. A certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, if unchallenged, makes the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R inapplicable to the land. A Tahsildar's certificate indicating that the landlord had filed an application for possession under Section 33B in 1960, and that documents were destroyed due to lapse of time, is sufficient reason for the Tribunal to review its earlier remand order.
Judgment Excerpts
I do not find any inflimity in the impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but in the interest of justice if the Petitioner is able to produce the copy of the application under Section 33-B or if the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is in a position on the Petitioner's application for Review to call for Record and proceedings then the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal may consider as to whether Review could be ordered or not. The petitioner seeks liberty to move in Review. Liberty is given only if Review petition is moved within three weeks. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal may also call for any evidence in respect of that application only.
the certificate granted in favour of the Respondent landlord under Section 88C was not shown to have been challenged or set aside. The Tribunal has held that since the certificate under Section 88C is obtained, provisions of Section 32 to 32-R of the said Act are not applicable.
Since, this Court granted liberty and permitted the Tribunal to consider whether review could be ordered, no fault can be found with the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order. Hence, there is no jurisdictional error.
Procedural History
Original tenant filed Section 32G application under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Indapur closed proceedings on 30.11.1960 due to landlord's Section 88C certificate. Tenant again filed Section 32G application in September 1993; Agricultural Lands Tribunal rejected it on 16.03.1994. Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati rejected the appeal on 10.06.1994. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed revision on 07.02.1996 and remanded for fresh inquiry. Landlord filed Writ Petition No. 3209 of 1996; High Court dismissed it on 11.07.1996 with liberty to seek review within three weeks. Landlord filed review on 31.07.1996; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed review on 19.09.1997 setting aside remand and confirming ALT and SDO orders. Present writ petition filed, admitted on 15.06.1998 with stay on review order. Civil Application No. 3116 of 2013 allowed on 08.01.2014 bringing Nitin Mahadeo Palkhe on record. Civil Application No. 1331 of 2014 allowed on 17.06.2014 bringing legal heirs of deceased respondent on record. Civil Application No. 2105 of 2014 filed seeking dismissal as abated and challenging present petitioner's locus standi.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Sections 32 to 32R, 32G, 33B, 33C, 40, 43, 76, 88C
