Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertained to agricultural land admeasuring 4 acres 18 gunthas, part of Gat No.441 at Village Mankeshwar, Taluka Paranda (Bhoom), District Osmanabad/Dharashiv. The land originally belonged to late Bhagwan Baburao Madi, predecessor of respondent nos.8 to 13. Bhagwan leased the suit property to deceased Murlidhar Kadam, father of respondent nos.1 to 7, under a lease deed dated 03.01.1974 for three years, governed by the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Murlidhar filed Regular Civil Suit No.28 of 1976 seeking perpetual injunction against forcible dispossession, and the issue of tenancy was referred to the Tahsildar, who by order dated 28.02.1979 declared Murlidhar a tenant. This finding was ultimately upheld by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 05.07.1983, and a writ petition by the landlord challenging it was dismissed on 14.09.2004. While the suit was pending, Bhagwan sold the suit property to the present petitioners under sale deeds dated 07.04.1982 and 11.04.1983. The tenant's civil suit was decreed on 30.04.1986, and the purchasers' objections in execution proceedings were rejected on 30.03.1990, with their appeal dismissed on 19.01.1999. A subsequent suit by the purchasers for injunction was dismissed on 29.02.2000. The tenant's name was recorded in the cultivating column vide Mutation Entry No.919, confirmed by the Additional Commissioner on 23.11.2001. In 2012-2013, respondent nos.1 to 7 filed applications before the Tahsildar seeking an ownership certificate for the suit property under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. The Tahsildar rejected the application on 30.01.2014, holding that Murlidhar was an ordinary tenant, not a protected tenant, that the total landholding of the landlord was 27 acres, less than one family holding of 30 acres as per Section 38(7), and that the application was barred by the one-year limitation under Section 38H. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal on 14.05.2015 on similar grounds. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the revision on 04.09.2017, holding that because the landlord had voluntarily sold the suit property to the petitioners, Section 48 of the Act was attracted, and Sections 38H and 38(7) did not apply when the right to purchase was exercised under Section 48. The petitioners, as purchasers, challenged this revisional order by filing the present writ petition. The core legal issue was whether the MRT correctly interpreted Section 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 as overriding the limitations in Sections 38H and 38(7). The petitioners argued that the tenant was required to exercise the right to purchase within one year from commencement of tenancy under Section 38H, and that the 2013 application filed 30 years after the sale deeds was hopelessly barred. They further contended that Section 48 does not confer any right to purchase, and even if the sale deeds were invalid, the tenant would not automatically be entitled to purchase. They also argued possession had been delivered to them through a court commissioner. The respondents countered that the tenancy litigation continued for a long period, and the application was filed shortly after the tenant's status was settled; they maintained that Sections 38(7) and 38H were inapplicable when Section 48 was invoked, and that the prior decrees and rejection of the purchasers' objections conclusively established the tenant's possession and status. The provided text records the arguments and the statutory framework, but the final operative decision of the High Court is not included in the extracted portion. The matter was heard on August 12, 2026, and the court had noted that Section 38 and 38H fall under Chapter IV-A, while Section 48 is in Chapter V titled "Restrictions on Transfers..." but the judgment text cuts off before the court's analysis and conclusion are completed. Therefore, the final holding and directions cannot be determined from the available text.
Headnote
A) Tenancy Law - Right of Tenant to Purchase Land - Section 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - The MRT held that when a landlord voluntarily sells tenanted land to third parties, Section 48 is attracted and the tenant's right to purchase is not subject to the one-year limitation under Section 38H or the family holding restriction under Section 38(7) - The High Court was called upon to examine the correctness of this interpretation in a writ petition filed by the purchasers - Held that the matter involves the applicability of Section 48 over Sections 38H and 38(7) (Paras 11-13, 18). B) Tenancy Law - Limitation for Purchase Application - Section 38H of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Petitioners contended that the tenant's application for purchase filed in 2013, about 30 years after the sale deeds of 1982-83, was barred because Section 38H required exercise of right within one year from commencement of tenancy - The MRT held that Section 38H is not attracted when right to purchase is exercised under Section 48 - The High Court considered whether delay alone should bar the application (Paras 9-13). C) Tenancy Law - Protected Tenant vs Ordinary Tenant - Sections 38(7) and 38H of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 - Tahsildar and Deputy Collector rejected the application on grounds that the tenant was an ordinary tenant, not protected, and that the landlord's total holding of 27 acres was less than one family holding of 30 acres - The MRT set aside these findings, holding that these restrictions do not apply when Section 48 is invoked - The High Court examined whether these statutory bars could coexist with Section 48 (Paras 9-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in holding that Section 48 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 applies and that Sections 38H and 38(7) do not bar the tenant's application for purchase of tenanted land; whether the application was barred by limitation or delay; whether an ordinary tenant has a right to purchase when the landlord's total holding is less than one family holding.
Law Points
- Section 48 of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1950 applies when landlord voluntarily sells tenanted land
- limitation under Section 38H not applicable when right to purchase is exercised under Section 48
- family holding restriction under Section 38(7) not a bar under Section 48
- tenant's status as ordinary tenant does not preclude purchase under Section 48
- decree of perpetual injunction and rejection of purchasers' objections establish tenant's possession and status
