Bombay High Court
7 Karishma Ajay Agarwal vs Ramesh Balkrishna Lase on 1 November, 2012
Bench: S.C. Dharmadhikari
WP2539.12+127
1
bsb
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2539 OF 2012
1 JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA,
At B/408, Punam Apartment,
Dr. Annie Besant Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
2 CHANDRAKANT KANTILAL SHAH,
At 303, Vijay Apartment, Ben Niwas Compound,
Warded Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
3 NITIN KANTILAL SONAWALA,
Residing at Flat No.26, 4th Floor,
Everest Building, Padam Tekadi,
PeddarRoad, Mumbai - 400 026.
4 MADHU KANTILAL SONAWALA,
Residing at A/2, Flat No.76,
Golden Coin Building, Tardeo Road,
Mumbai - 400 026.
5 AMEETA VIRENDRA SONAWALA,
wife and legal representative of
Late Shri Virendra Kantilal Sonawala,
Residing at 303, Vijay Apartment,
Ben Niwas Compound, Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
6 ALOK VIRENDRA SONAWALA
son and legal representative of
Late Shri Virendra Kantilal Sonawala,
Residing at 303, Vijay Apartment,
Ben Niwas Compound, Warden Road, Mumbai - 400 026.
7 KARISHMA AJAY AGARWAL,
daughter and legal representative of
Late Shri Virendra Kantilal Sonawala,
Residing at W - 41 , 4th Floor,
RoadSideView, GreaterKailash-2,
New Delhi - 110 048. ... Petitioners
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:57 :::
WP2539.12+127
2
V/S
1 THE MAHARSHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL,
having office at Old Secretariat Building,
2nd floor, Opp. Jehangir Art Gallery, Mumbai 400 032.
2 LALITA RAMESH LASE
3 DHANANJAY RAMESH LASE
4 BHARAT RAMESH LASE
5 PRAVIN RAMESH LASEig
6 RAKHI SANDEEP SANTHAR
being the legal heirs of
Ramesh Balkrishna Lase
all residing at Village Kharigaon,
Taluka & District Thane. ... Respondents
ALONG WITH
WRIT PETITION NOS.2535 OF 2012 TO 2538 OF 2012
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS.2540 OF 2012 TO 2662 OF 2012
Mr.Pravin Samdani, Sr. Advocate a/with Mr.Karl Tamboly a/with
Mr.Kunal Vajani a/with Mr.Pranaya Goyal and Mr.Chinmaya Gajaria
i/by M/s.Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the petitioners in all petitions.
Mr.R.M.Patne, A.G.P. for the State in all petitions.
Mr.Subhash Jha i/by Mr.Dinesh Tiwary for some of the respondents
in all the writ petitions.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:20:57 :::
WP2539.12+127
3
Mr.Dinesh Tiwari, Swapnil Ambire, Subhash Patil, Santosh Avhad
and Ms.Monica Mishra for three respondents in all the writ petitions.
CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE : 31ST OCTOBER, 2012 &
1ST NOVEMBER, 2012
ORAL JUDGMENT:
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent of the
parties.
2 These 128 writ petitions although by different petitioners, they
impugn the same orders of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and,
therefore, they were taken up together. There are common
arguments canvassed. There is a common grievance of each of the
petitioner, namely, that the Tribunal should not have remanded the
case after it finds that the petitioners/original applicants have
satisfied it that none of the orders impugned before the Tribunal can
be sustained in law. In these circumstances, these writ petitions can
be disposed of by a common order. They were heard finally. By
consent of the parties they are being disposed of.
WP2539.12+127
3 Mr.Samdani, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the writ petitioners, has referred to the list of dates and events in
Writ Petition No.2539 of 2012. He submits that the controversy is
common but for convenience, some of the facts in this writ petition
be noted.
4 This writ petition is filed by Jairaj Kantilal Sonawala and 6
others on the basis that they are owners and in possession of/or
otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to part and parcel of land
comprising of Gut Nos.45/1, 57/1, 63/2(p), 63/3(p), 63/4(p), 65/1,
65/3, 68, 72, 73, 78/1, 78/2, 78/3 and 78/4 admeasuring
approximately 300 areas, situated at Village Khari, Dist. Thane.
5 It is the case of the petitioners that respondent Nos.2 to 6 to
this writ petition are legal heirs of Ramesh Balkrishna Lase who was
the original applicant. He had filed an application on 21 st March,
1983 invoking Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the B.T.A.L.
WP2539.12+127
Act), claiming a declaration that he was the tenant of the petitioners
in respect of the land Survey No. 78(p). It was alleged by him that
he was cultivating this agricultural land.
6 It is the case of the petitioners that by a registered sale deed
dated 5th October, 1965 between late Kantilal M. Sonawala and late
Dayalal Acharya, and by subsequent duly registered modification
deed dated 28th June, 1968 also executed between the same parties,
late Kantilal M. Sonawala became the exclusive owner of the said
land, more particularly described herein above. There is a mutation
vide mutation entry No.191 dated 1 st April, 1968 entering the name
of said Kantilal M. Sonawala in the revenue records pertaining to
this land. The petitioners then claimed that Kantilal died in or about
1969. The land was divided between his five sons being legal heirs
and representatives. Out of them, four are the petitioners and the 5 th
son Virendra Kantilal Sonawala died some time in or about 2006.
Petitioner Nos.5 to 7 are the legal heirs and representatives of
Virendra Kantilal Sonawala. It is stated that, on 21 st March, 1983,
234 persons including the original applicant filed an application
WP2539.12+127
under Section 70(b) of the B.T.A.L. Act in the office of the Tahsildar,
Thane, for a declaration that they are tenants of the petitioners in
respect of their individual plots of land and allegedly cultivated by
them. The petitioners state that, each of these applications which
are in cyclostyled form, in which only name of each applicant being
filled in and the number of years from when tenancy was claimed,
entered on each application in ink. Each one of the applicant named
that Chandrakant Kantilal Shah and others were the
landlords/owners and that the applicants were tenants of the
agricultural lands cultivating the same for the past 20-22 years. The
claim of cultivation is from 1961 to 1962.
7 On such applications/notices were issued and the petitioners
filed their written statement contending that from the date that
Kantilal Sonawala purchased the said land, namely, in the year 1965,
till the date of the aforesaid applications, there is no record of any
tenant of the said land, leave alone, any such names nor any revenue
records of the land referring to any such claimant of tenancy. The
petitioners relied upon the 7/12 extracts for the period from 1969
WP2539.12+127
till the year 1984. It is their case that the land is "khajan" and
"budit" and is for non-agricultural and industrial use and it is
accordingly uncultivable and the notification published in the official
gazette in the year 1967 was relied upon. The petitioners state that
they have been paying land revenue to the Government and the
revenue rent receipts were produced.
8 On 26th September, 1986, the Tahsildar passed 234 orders all
in the same format declaring each of the applicants to be tenants of
the original owners/landlords in respect of the individual plots of
land allegedly cultivated by them. After passing of these orders
pursuant to an application made by them, the applicants' names
came to be inserted in the 7/12 extracts under the "Other Rights"
column. The original opponents, being aggrieved by the orders of
the Tahsildar, preferred appeals to the Assistant Collector, Thane.
These appeals were heard and by an order passed on 11 th January,
1989 they were allowed. However, while setting aside the order of
Tahsildar, the Assistant Collector ordered a remand of the cases for
fresh enquiry. The order of remand stated that each of the
WP2539.12+127
applicants' case should be treated separately and individually and be
dealt with as such.
9 After the order of remand, the parties appeared before the
Resident Nayab Tahsildar and the Resident Nayab Tahsildar
commenced the enquiry. The enquiry went on and subsequently he
passed various orders from 30th November, 2000 to 30th September,
2002, declaring each of the applicants before him as protected
tenants. The applications which were dealt with were 134 in
number and covered by these orders. The petitioners preferred 134
appeals before the Sub-divisional Officer, Thane Division, Thane
(hereinafter referred to as "the S.D.O."), and the S.D.O. heard these
tenancy appeals and passed orders on 13 th December, 2002/16th
December, 2002, setting aside the order passed by the Resident
Nayab Tahsildar. The S.D.O. held that there is no sufficient evidence
adduced by the original applicants to enable the Tahsildar to uphold
the claim of tenancy. Some of the original applicants preferred
Revision applications under Section 76 of the B.T.A.L. Act before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the
WP2539.12+127
Tribunal"). In the meanwhile, the original applicant expired and
what the petitioners are aggrieved by is, the fact that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has, despite some of the applicants
having been expired and not being represented, passed the
impugned order. The petitioners have referred to the fact that, one
writ petition being Writ Petition No.9428 of 2010 was filed
challenging the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
and during the course of its pendency, the petitioners were informed
that the original applicant had passed away on 28 th February, 2008.
The petitioners, therefore, took steps and impleaded respondent
Nos.2 to 6 herein as heirs and legal representatives of the original
applicant. Since this Court observed that there are individual cases
which have been dealt with by the Tribunal, it would be proper if
individual writ petitions are filed, and that is how the petitioners
proceeded to file these individual writ petitions challenging the order
passed by the Tribunal .
10 It is urged by Shri Samdani, learned senior counsel, that the
Tribunal, after having given conclusive findings in favour of the
WP2539.12+127
present petitioners, has unnecessarily and without any justification
directed a remand of the cases. If the Tribunal's findings and
conclusions right up-to paragraph 31 are perused, it would be
apparent that the Tribunal does not find any substance in the
contentions of the original applicants that they were tenants of the
agricultural land. My attention is invited by Shri Samdani to the
findings up-to paragraph 18 of the impugned order and thereafter
from paragraphs 19 to 31. Shri Samdani has handed over two charts
to demonstrate that the original applicants have miserably failed to
prove their claim. According to him, the Tribunal should not have
directed a remand in these circumstances.
11 For instance, Shri Samdani invited my attention to the case of
one of the applicants which has been dealt with by the Tribunal. It is
urged by Shri Samdani that, if the Tribunal was of the opinion that
there is absolutely no material on record to conclude that the
original applicants have proved their case of tenancy, then, why the
remand has been ordered is not clear at all. If the Tribunal was of
the opinion that in all the matters, there is no valid evidence to
WP2539.12+127
declare original applicants to be tenants and in spite of all these
facts, the Tahsildar without recording any reasons, has declared
them as tenants, then the S.D.O. was justified in allowing appeals of
landlords and setting aside the orders of Tahsildar. If the statements
of tenants are perused and when there is no evidence to show that
the lands were cultivable any time and have been cultivated
personally and by whom and to whom the rent was paid, then
according to Shri Samdani, there is no justification for directing the
remand. The remand is ordered not to fill up any lacuna but if the
principles of Order XLI Rule 23 and 23-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure or analogous thereto are to be complied, then, only in the
event the case is decided on preliminary issues and a finding on that
issue is reversed by higher Court, then for a decision on merits of the
entire case, a remand is necessary. In other contingency, a remand is
directed in the interest of justice. However, in no case remand is
justified so as to enable the parties to fill up the lacuna or remove
the defects in their cases. Once the case has been dealt with on
merits and there are conclusive findings rendered, then, a remand is
wholly unnecessary. A higher Court having opined that the material
WP2539.12+127
record is insufficient or there is no evidence or that there is no
material at all, then, a remand can never be directed.
12 Shri Samdani, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners, has relied upon a compilation of documents and also the
following decisions in support of his submissions :-
(i) Shamrao Maruti Patil & ors. v/s Smt.Shantabai
Dattatraya Salokhe, reported in 1 (1994) Bom. L.R. 260;
(ii) Mallappa Kallapa Shahapure & ors. v/s Narasingh
Saraswati Deo, reported in 2003 (3) Bom.C.R. 858;
(iii) Girja Kumar (1) & ors. v/s State of Himachal Pradesh
& anr., reported in )2007) 14 SCC 93.
13 Shri Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, who are contesting these petitions and who are the
original applicants or their heirs/legal representatives or persons
claiming through them, submitted that the Tribunal was considering
a case of an application made under Section 70(b) of the B.T. & A.L.
Act, 1948. That is a application in which relief claimed is pertaining
WP2539.12+127
to the status of the applicants. That status claimed is of tenancy and
in relation to an agricultural land. This is an agrarian statute and
furthering agrarian reforms and it is a beneficial and social
legislation. It is intended to achieve the object and purpose of
protecting those who are cultivating the lands. If they are found to
be cultivating lands and in physical possession as on the specified
date, namely, 1st April, 1957 or prior thereto, then their rights are
fully recognized, protected by the statute. Such being the intent of
the legislature, whenever cases of this nature filed before the
authorities under the B.T. & A.L. Act are being considered, a view
which furthers the object and purpose of the Act rather than defeats
it has to be taken. Very often claims are put forward by those who
are poor, illiterate and have no means or resources to approach
either the authorities or a Court of law. When such poor persons are
being displaced from agricultural land and they approach the
authorities seeking protection, then, when they are handicapped and
do not have complete material with them, some assistance can be
given to them by remanding their cases for a fresh enquiry. This is
not a case where the Court should interfere in writ jurisdiction
WP2539.12+127
merely because another view is possible. Similarly, this is not a case
where Tribunal has committed any gross error of law apparent on
the face of the record or perversity in remanding the cases. The
Tribunal was aware of such difficulties and miseries of a poor
agriculturalist. It took up for consideration four sample cases. The
applicants in these cases were not aware about their title. They were
not having complete details. The documents were not in their
custody. The Tribunal perused the records and found that there are
about 200 villagers who have staked their claims. There are spot
panchanams. Equally, the landlords never claimed that they
cultivated the land personally or through some one. Under these
circumstances, if the fate of 200 families is to be decided, then, a
proper enquiry must be held and for that purpose remand is
necessary. Finally, the Tribunal referred to the fact that tenants as
also landlords, filed application for production of documents. While
the landlord urged that the land was never cultivated as it was a
"Khajan" or "Budit" land, the tenants filed application which
indicated, according to the Tribunal, that the lands were cultivated
from 1931-32 and in the "Crop" column, the crop is indicated, which
WP2539.12+127
is "rice/Bhat". If there is no explanation forthcoming as to why the
land records indicate that the lands were under cultivation, then, for
a proper scrutiny and to enable the tenants to produce all the
documents which would evidence and substantiate their claim, a
remand would be necessary. If these are the state of affairs and
voluminous documents were produced, Shri Jha submits, that the
Tribunal's final conclusion need not be interfered with. The writ
petitions be, therefore, dismissed.
14 With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for
parties, I have perused the petition and the annexures thereto. I
have also perused with their assistance the orders of the Tribunal
which have been impugned before me. I have also perused the
charts and some of the documents which have been compiled.
15 The Tribunal had before it, the revision applications and
details of some revision applications have been set out in the order
passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal in the opening paragraph of its
order has observed that the revision applications have been preferred
WP2539.12+127
by persons claiming to be tenants and they are aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the S.D.O.,
Thane, in different appeals. The S.D.O. in the appeals, has set aside
the orders of the Tahsildar, Thane, who declared all the revision
applicants before the Tribunal as tenants of the lands. The details of
the cases taken up and dealt with by the authorities are to be found
in paragraph 3 of the order passed by the Tribunal. These details
running into several pages would indicate as to how number of
applications came to be preferred and how some of them have been
dealt with and they are grouped accordingly.
16 The Tribunal has proceeded to hold that there is no dispute
that the lands belong to Chandakant Kantilal Shah and his brothers.
They have purchased the lands under the registered sale deed dated
5th October, 1965 from one Dayalal Acharya. The schedule of the
sale deed has been referred to which shows that the land
admeasures 332.35 acres. The lands are described by old survey
numbers. There are 110 survey numbers and reference is made to
the cancellation deed dated 28th June, 1967 and the schedules
WP2539.12+127
thereto. What has been then referred to by the Tribunal is the
admitted fact of the applications being filed by each of the
respondents/original applicants in March, 1983 claiming to be
tenants of the lands in question. These applications were made by
245 persons and they were allowed in the year 1986. The decisions
of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal were challenged
before the Assistant Collector, Thane, who allowed the revision
applications and remanded the matters for fresh trial. In this order
of the Assistant Collector also, there are observations that the
applications are nothing but cyclostyled copies. The names and
certain details are inserted in ink. Though different persons claim
tenancy, particulars of the lands were not given in the application.
The evidence led was also cyclostyled copies showing deposition by
different persons. However, after the remand order, the original
applicants before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and
respondents in the present proceedings appeared before the
Agricultural Land Tribunal. They filed amendment applications. On
these amendment applications, there is no endorsement as to on
which date they were submitted and taken on record, there are no
WP2539.12+127
signatures of the Agricultural Land Tribunal, there are no orders
passed on these amendment applications purporting to furnish
particulars of tenancy, and there are no particulars given. The
amendments are to the effect that each of the applicant is cultivating
the lands for 40-45 years. In the earlier application, the pleading is
that the disputed land is in the applicant's possession for 20-22
years. There is nothing on record which indicate that the
amendment application is allowed. However, some undated
statements appear to have been made in each proceedings without
there being any endorsement of the Tahsildar. The statements are
that the applicants confirmed their earlier stand and assertions.
However, except the 7/12 extract for the year 1982-83 showing
names of 25 persons as cultivators and some mutation entries in the
name of legal representatives after the death of original applicant, no
documents appear to have been produced. On behalf of the present
petitioners, namely, the writ petitioners, zerox copies of their
statements and also one of the landlords recorded on 15 th February,
1999 and 20th February, 1999 are filed in each of the proceedings. In
very few cases, may not be more than 10, statements of applicants
WP2539.12+127
were recorded and they were cross-examined. In other cases, there
is no cross-examination. Yet, the Agricultural Land Tribunal allowed
these applications and declared the applicants before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal as tenants. The writ petitioners,
being aggrieved by this judgment, preferred appeals before the
S.D.O. The learned S.D.O. allowed all the appeals except 5, namely,
Appeal No.144/2002, 158/2002, 143/2002, 154/2002 and
153/2002. He dismissed these 5 appeals and held the respondent
herein as tenants of the lands and not of present landlord Sonawalas,
but one Madhukar Acharya. It is not necessary to refer to those
orders, inasmuch as, they are not questioned.
17 The order of the S.D.O. allowing the other appeals and setting
aside the declaration of tenancy in favour of the original applicants
therein, was questioned in the revision applications on which the
impugned order has been made.
18 The learned then President of the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal has referred to the arguments of the advocates in great
WP2539.12+127
detail and up-to para 12 he makes a reference to the same as also
some documents.
19 Then from paragraph 12, the sample cases or instances which
would enable the learned President to arrive at a complete and
proper picture are referred. It is stated that the Tenancy Revision
Application No.131/B/05 is preferred by landlords and one Laxman
Lasa is a tenant. Laxman Lase filed Tenancy Case No.173/87 before
the Agricultural Land Tribunal. He filed application under Section
70(b) on 11th February, 1983. After remand by the order of the
Assistant Collector, his case is registered as Case No.173 of 1987.
The original application filed by Shri Laxman Lase is cyclostyled. He
states that he cultivates the land since 20-22 years and it is owned by
Chandrakant Shah. Though he pleads that he cultivates the land,
his name is not appearing in the records of rights.
20 The learned President then refers to the statement recorded on
28th September, 1985 and holds that this is a cyclostyled statement in
which it is stated that the landlord resides at Mumbai, he never
WP2539.12+127
visited the land. The statement proceeds to state that he used to pay
the rent since 1st April, 1957 to landlord through "Munim", without
disclosing the name. Thus, though the disputed land is shown to be
Survey No.78/6 to the extent of 30 gunthas in the statement and
also supporting statements, there are no details, save and except,
urging that the applicant Laxman Lase is the tenant of the lands
owned by Chandrakant Shah and he does cultivate the lands. In the
statement which was supporting the case of Laxmana Lase, it is
stated that the rent was paid through "Mukadam" to the landlord.
Thus, during the course of 22 years no attempt is made to enter the
details in the "Possession" column in the revenue records and in
cyclostyled statement the details are given. If Chandrakant Shah has
purchased the property in 1965, then, the revisional authority holds
that he had absolutely no concern with this land in 1957. The
landlord, in the year 1957, was the vendor from whom Chandrakant
Shah had acquired the rights in the property. Thus, each of the
details which were placed before the Tribunal, were found to be
erroneous and faulty. Yet, the declaration was given that this person
WP2539.12+127
is a tenant of the agricultural land. Such a finding was set aside by
the Assistant Collector in 1989 by the order passed on 11 th January,
1989. On remand of the case also nothing better was placed before
the Tahsildar and Agricultural Revenue Tribunal. The application for
amendment was moved wherein it was stated that one acre portion
is in possession of this applicant Laxman Lase. Now this information
was supplied by villagers. No particulars are given, only amendment
is proposed and this time there is an improvement that the
possession is from 40-45 years. There is no name of the landlord
disclosed nor that of the "Mukadam" who is allegedly collecting the
rent. The amendment application is undated. It does not bear any
endorsement when it was presented to the Tahsildar. There is no
order passed on this application. After remand also, the statement of
Laxman Lase was recorded on 14 th July, 1993. The lands were stated
to be in possession from 40-45 years. Once the statement is making
reference to Chandrakant Shah as owner, that would mean that the
applicant has not come forward with relevant and pertinent details
and has no idea as to how the lands had changed hands. Now this
WP2539.12+127
statement which is stated to have been recorded on remand, does
not bear any endorsement or signature of the authority. There is one
more statement recorded of Laxman Lase before the Tahsildar on
20th July, 2001. In this, there is another discrepancy wherein it is
stated that the land is in his cultivation. However, rent was paid to
the landlord in kind. Then it is stated that the "bandhs" are erected
along with other villagers and payment of levy was made to the
Government. There is no reference as to who was the landlord
previously and later on how the levy was paid to the Government.
There is no cross-examination and equally the Tribunal holds that
landlords never refused to cross-examine him. Therefore, such a
statement has been termed as no evidence.
21 The Tribunal's judgment is replete with observations and it is
pertinent to note that not only in case of said Laxman Lase but while
dealing with the M.L.C. Revision No.132/B/05, the case of one
Shivram has been dealt with by the Tribunal. This case is also
similar to that of Laxman Lase. Then there are further cases referred
WP2539.12+127
in paragraphs 14 and 15 and they pertain to Shankar Bubera and
Gopinath and one Jagdish.
22 Paragraph 16 of the Tribunal's order categorizes the tenancy
cases, the name of the tenant and details of land, the appeal number
and revision number and a summary of the evidence led. That
paragraph with the chart is eloquent enough and deserves to be
reproduced. It is accordingly reproduced as under :
"16. Let us now consider another group of revision
applications which are the revision applications preferred
by different tenants whose applications were allowed by
ALT declaring them to be tenants. But learned S.D.O. set
aside those orders, and tenants came in this revision. By
examining record and proceeding of each and every case
for the factual aspect and evidence led by tenants,
following chart is prepared which shows what type of
evidence is being led in these matters.
WP2539.12+127
Sr. Tenancy Case Name of the Appeal No. Evidence led on
No. Details Tenant & & Revision behalf of both the
Details of No. parties
land
1 TNC 276/87 Pandurang A. 102/2002 1. Statement of Pundlik.
Typed application dated Krishna Bhoir R. 149/B/2003 2. Without signature off
21.3.1983. S.No.78 Tahasildar.
After remand carried out 3. No cross. copy of written
amendment but no statement by
specification landowners.
4. Second statement of
ig landowners.
5. Copy of statement of
landowner Jayraj
dated 15.2.99
2 TNC 159/87 Ramesh Lhase A. 83/2002 1. Statement of Ramesh,
Typed application Dated S.No.63 R. 150/B/2003 undated and not signed
21.3.1983. H.No.191 by Tahasildar.
Amended application 2. Joint statement of
dated 15.12.2000 Viththal Lhase and
Keshav Bubera, no
signature of Tahasildar.
3. Statement of Ramesh
dated 15.12.2000.
4. Respondent absent.
3 TNC 216/87 Ramibai Pawale. A. 104/2002 1. Joint statement of
Typed application Dated S.No.78 R. 151/B/2003 Anant and Pandurang
21.3.1983. H.No.140 Bhoir dated 8.8.1986
Undated application Ramibai died 2. Statement of Ramibai
again without 17.10.96 L/R 3. Written Statement of
description. Naresh Kavale land owners.
and others. 4. Statement of Naresh
5. Zerox copy off
statement of Jayraj
dated 15.2.1999
4 TNC 272/87 Dattatray A. 39/2002 1. Statement of Dattatray
Typed application Dated Gavali S.No.178 R. 152/B/2003 dated 8.8.1986
21.3.1983. H.No.110A 2. Statement of Laxmi.
Amended application 30 Gunthas L/R 3. Statement of Dattatray
without boundaries of L/R Laxmi. and Keshav.
land but for S.No.73, 4. Written Statement of
H.No.27 and 28. land owners.
5. Statement of Laxmibai
WP2539.12+127
Gauri
5 TNC 179/87 Keshav Bubera A. 116/2002 1. Statement of Keshav
Typed application Dated L/R Dattaram R. 153/B/2003 dated 28.9.1985
21.3.1983. Bubera 2. Joint statement of
Amended application S.No.78, 1 acre Mohan & Hira Pawar
without boundaries of S.No.63 dated 28.9.85
land H.No.201 + 3. Statement of
185A, 2 acre Dattatray Keshav.
4. Written Statement of
land owners.
5. Statement of land
owner Jayram.
6 TNC 241/87 Jayram Joshi A. 102/2002 1. Statement of Jayram
Typed application Dated S.No.78 R. 154/B/2003 Joshi.
21.3.1983. H.No.11 2. Joint statement of
Amended application.
ig Gopinath & Tukaram
Bubera.
3. Statement of Jayram.
4. Statement of Jayram
Joshi dated 25.2.1999.
5. Statement of
Sonawala dated
20.2.1999.
7 TNC 229/87 Ramdas Govar A. 65/2002 1. Statement of Savitri.
Typed application Patil R. 157/B/2003 2. Joint statement of
Amended application S.No.78 Shivaram & Ramdas.
dated 12.4.1994, no H.No.140 & 141 3. Statement of Savitri
amendment. dated 25.2.1999
4. Statement of Jayraj
dated 20.2.1999.
8 TNC 158/87 Narayan Bubera A. 98/2002 1. Statement of Savitri
Typed application L/R Savitri R. 158/B/2003 dated 9.1.2001
21.3.83 Bubera S.No.63 2. Statement of Savitri
Amended application H.No.198 1986
dated S.No.93/199. 3. Joint Statement of
S.No.78/77 Sitaram & Shanwar
Patil
4. Written statement of
land owners.
5. Statement of Jayraj.
9 TNC 274/87 Ramabai Bhoir A. 113/2002 1. Statement of Vasant
Typed application S.No.78/116 R. 159/B/2003 Bhoir
21.3.83 L/R Vasant 2. Joint statement of
Amended application but Bhoir. Bhoir and Patil dated
no specification 8.8.86
3. Statement of Ramabai
dated 8.8.86
4. Written statement of
land owners.
5. Statement of
WP2539.12+127
Ramchandra Bhoir
dated 23.5.2001.
6. Copy of Statement of
Jayram.
10 TNC 247/87 Pundlik Gavali A. 94/2002 1. Statement of Pundlik
Typed application R. 160/B/2003 Gavali
21.3.83 2. Joint statement of
Amended application Vishnu and Raghunath
undated Gauri
but no amendment. 3. Statement of Pundlik
Gavali dated 22.7.1993
4. Statement of
Chandibai Gavali.
5. Written Statement of
land owners
6. Statement of Pundlik
ig Gavali dated 27.2.2001
7. Copy of Statement of
land owners dated
15.2.1999.
11 TNC 239/87 Ramdas Patil A. 74/2002 1. Statement of Savitri
Typed application L/R Savitri Patil R. 161/B/2003 Patil dated 31.10.1985
Dated 21.3.83. S.No.78/67 2. Joint statement of
Amended application no Area 1 acre Gana Gulavi and Lhase.
Amendment. 3. Statement of Savitri
Patil dated 13.12.2000
4. Copy of statement of
Jayraj dated 15.2.1999
12 TNC 264/87 Pandurang A. 106/2002 1. Statement of
Typed application Bubera S.No.78 R. 162/B/2003 Pandurang dated
Dated 21.3.1983. S.No.113 8.8.1986
Amended application L/R Anusaya 2. Joint statement of
S.No.63 Bhoir and Mhatre.
3. Statement of
Pandurang Bubera
4. Written statement of
Jayraj
5. Statement of Savitri
and Anusaya
6. Copy of Statement of
Jayraj dated 15.2.1999
13 TNC 215/87 Jagadish Patil A. 67/2002 1. Statement of Jagadish
Typed application S.No.78 R. 163/B/2003 dated 8.8.1986
Dated 21.3.1983. Amended 2. Joint statement
Amended application S.No.63 Chandrakant and
no description. Raghunath Patil.
3 Statement of Jagadish
Patil
4. Statement of Jagdish
Patil
WP2539.12+127
5. Statement of Jagadish
Patil dated 24.2.1999
5. Statement of Jayraj
dated 15.2.1999
6. Statement of Jayraj
dated 20.2.1999
14 TNC 250/87 Pundlik Govind A. 36/2002 1. Statement of Pundlik.
Typed application Patil S.No.78 R. 164/B/2003 2. Joint statement of
Dated 21.3.1983. H.No.7 L/R Narayan Pawar and
Amended application Mamubai Patil Mhatre.
no description. and Vijay Patil 3. Statement of Pundlik
4. Written Statement of
landlord.
5. Statement of Pundlik
6. Joint Statement
Narayan Parshuram
ig 7.
Statement of Pundlik
Statement of Mamubai
Pundalik Patil.
15 TNC 217/87 Manohar Kawale A. 103/2002 1. Statement of Manohar
Typed application S.No.78, 110 R. 165/B/2003 Kawale
Dated 21.3.1983. Area 1 acre 2. Joint statement of
Amended application Atmaram and Datta.
undated no description 3. Statement of Manohar
in amendment. Kawale
4. Written Statement of
landlord.
5. Statement of Pundlik
6. Joint Statement
Manohar Kawale
24.5.2001
7. Statement of Jayraj
dated 15.2.1999.
16 TNC 231/87 Shankar A. 54/2002 1. Statement of Shankar
Typed application Mahadu Bhagat R. 166/B/2003 Bhagat dated 8.8.86
Dated 21.3.1983. S.No.78/113 B 2. Joint statement of
Amended application Datta and Keshav Patil
undated. 3. Statement of Shankar
Bhagat dated 6.3.1999
4. Copy of statement of
Jayraj Sonawala dated
15.2.1999 and
20.2.1999
17 TNC 118/87 Krishna Dharma A. 24/2002 1 Statement of Krishna
Typed application Patil R. 167/B/2003 Dharma Patil dated
Dated 21.3.1983. S.No.178 8.8.86
Amended application. H.No.103 2. Joint statement of
Keshav and
Ramchandra 8.8.86
WP2539.12+127
3. Statement of Krishna
Dharma Patil dated
27.6.01
18 TNC 141/87 Vishnu Jana A. 114/2002 1. Statement of Vishnu
Typed application Bhoir R. 168/B/2003 Jana Bhoir
Dated 21.3.1983 S.No.78/11 2. Statement of Vishnu
Amended application Jana Bhoir
without date no 3. Joint statement of
specification. Kana and Raghunath
4. Statement of Vishnu
Jana Bhoir dated
15.5.2001
5. Written Statement of
landlord.
6. Copy of Statement of
Jayaraj dated
19 TNC 93/87
Typed application
ig Balibai Ambo
Paitl L/R Vithu
A. 29/2002
R. 169/B/2003
15.2.1999
Statement of Vithu
Patil
Dated 21.3.1983 S.No.63/244 2. Joint statement of
Amended application Dharma and Damodar
without any Bubera
specification. 3. Statement of Motubai
Vithu Patil dated
27.6.2001.
20 TNC 189/87 Gana Hasha A. 87/2002 1. Statement of Gana
Typed application Gulvi R. 170/B/2003 Gulvi 28.9.1985
dated 21.3.1983. S.No.78/61 2. Joint statement of
Amended undated Area 1 acre Ramdas and Sham
application for Hasha died Bhoir
Amendment. Kundalik and 3. Statement of Kundlik
Yashvant Gulvi Gulvi and Yashvant
date 24.4.2001
4. Statement of Jayraj
dated 15.2.1999.
21 Ten. Case No. 252/87 Parshuram A.44/2002 1. Statement of Dharma
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Mar. Dharma Mhatre R.171/B/2003 2. Jt. Statement of
87 Undated Amendment S.No.78/3 Pundalik Patil / Narayan
Application 1 Acre Pawar
3. Statement of
Parshuram Dharma dt.
15/2/99
4. Statement of land
owner dt. 15.2.99
22 Ten. Case No. 256/87 Ramesh Lase A. 46/2002 1. Statement of Ramesh
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Mar. S.No.78 R. 172/B/2003 Lase dated 31/10/85
87 Undated Amendment H.No.36/2 2. Jt. statement of
Application 20G Thakrya Lase / Gana
Mhatre dated 31/10/85
3. 7/12 extract for the
year 1991-92
WP2539.12+127
4. 7/12 extract S.No.65-
1991-92
5. 7/12 extract S.No.63-
1991-92
6. MEs in the name of
landlords
7. Statement of Ramesh
Lase- dt. 20/7/93
8. Written Statement of
landlord
9. Copy of Statement of
land owner Jairaj - dt.
15/2/99
23 Ten. Case No. 228/87 Narayan Bubera A.64/2002 1. Statement of Savitri
Typed appl. Dt. 21 Mar - LR Savitri R.173/B/2003 dated 31/10/85
87 Bubera 2. Jt. Statement of
S.No.78/77
1 Acre
Thakrya Lase / Ramesh
Lased t. 31/10/85
Statement of Naryan
Bubera dated 20/7/93
(Ashok)
4. Statement (undated)
of Savitri
5. Statement of Savitri
-25/2/99
6. 7/12 extract 1998-99
(S.No.78)
7. 7/12 extract S.No.63
8. MEs of landlord
9. Copy of statement of
landlord Jairaj dt.
20/2/99 & 15/2/99
24 Ten Case No. 214/87 Sonubai Maruti A. 68/2002 -
(Record not available) Lase R. 174/B/2003
S.No.78
40 Gunthas
25 Ten. Case No. 125/87 Ramkrishna A. 21/2002 1. Statement of Dhanubai
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Mar. Bubera-LR R. 175/B/2003 dt 28/9/85
87 Undated amendment Dhanubai 2. Joint statement of
appln. Bubera Vitthal Lase/ Mohan
S.No. 78/16 Kawle dt. 28/9/85
1 Acres 3. Undated statement of
Dhanubai
4. Copy of statement of
land owner dt. 20/2/99
5. Statement of
Dhanubai dt. 12/6/01
26 Ten Case No. 195/87 Gopinath A. 93/2002 1. Zerox copies of 7/12
(Record not available) Ganpat Patil R. 176/B/2003 extract
S.No.63 (Name of applicant not
appearing)
WP2539.12+127
1 Acre
27 Ten Case No. 149/87 Bhiwa Ambo A. 117/2002 1. 7/12 extract S.No.63-
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Patil LR Rajubai R. 177/B/2003 1982-83
Mar.87 S.No.63/280 Names of 25 persons
Undated amendment 1 Acre shown as cultivators
appln. including Bhiwa Ambo
2. Statement of Rajubai -
Undated
3. Jt. Statement of Pudlik
Kawle / Balaram Bhoir
dt. 28/4/85
4. Statement of Bhiwa
Ambo Patil - Undated
5. Statement of Gopinath
Bhiwa Patil
ig 6. Copy of ME of 2000
7. 7/12 extract for 2000-
01 showing name of
Gopinath
8. WS of landlord
9. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
10. Statement of
Vishwanath
28 Ten Case No. 259/87 Ramabai Kawle A. 86/2002 1. Jt. Statement of
Typed appln. Dt. 21 LR Muktabai R. 178/B/2003 Pundlik Kawle / Vasant
Mar.87 Patil S.No.78/12 Ragho - undated
Amendment appln. Dt. 1 Acre 2. Statement of Ramabai
12/4/94 Kawle - undated
3. Statement of Muktabai
- 19/4/01
4. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
5. WS of Jairaj
29 Ten Case No. 258/87 Thakrya Gopal A. 42/2002 1. Statement of Thakrya
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Lase R. 179/B/2003 Lase - 31/10/85
Mar.87 S.No.78/38 2. Jt. Statement of Gana
Undated amendment 1 Acre Mhatre / Dashrath
appln. Patil
3. Undated statement of
Thakrya Lase
4. WS of landlords
5. ME on Thakrya's death
6. Statement of son
Devanand dt.
27/6/2001
30 Ten Case No. 257/87 Sitaram Krishna A. 109/2002 1 Undated statement of
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Pawar - LR R. 180/B/2003 Sitaram
Mar.87 by Sitaram Janabai Pawar
WP2539.12+127
Undated Amendment S.No.78/64 2. Jt. Undated statement
Appln. 1 Acre of Krishna Bubera /
By Janabai Chandrakant Pawar
3. WS of landlords.
4. Statement of Janabai
dt. 23/5/01
5. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
31 Ten Case No. 270/87 Motiram Shiwa A. 34/2002 1. Statement of Motiram,
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Gauri - LR R. 181/B/2003 dt. 8/8/86
Mar.87 Sanjay Motiram 2. Jt. Statement of Anant
Undated amendment Gauri Bhoir / Kashinath Patil
appln. S.No.78/93 dt. 8/8/86
1 Acre 3. WS of landlords
4. Statement of Motiram
ig Shiva Gauri dt.
14/6/01
32 Ten Case No. 227/87 Ramchandra A. 61/2002 1. Statement of
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Mahadu Bhagat R. 182/B/2003 Ramchandra dt.
Mar.87 S.No.78/56 8/8/86
Undated amendment 1 Acre 2. Jt. statement of
appln. Prabhakar Bubera /
Dattatray Fulare dt.
8.8.86
3. Statement of
Ramchandra Bhagat
dt.
20/7/93
4. Statement of
Ramchandra
dt.24/2/99
5. Statement of land
owner Jairaj dt.
15/2/99 & 20/2/99
33 Ten Case No. 262/87 Janardan A. 89/2002 1. 7/12 extract
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Shantaram R. 183/B/2003 S.No.63/301 16-99
Mar.87 Gauri - LR H.R. Year 1982-83
Undated amendment Premnath 2. Statement of Janardan
appln. Janardan Gauri Gauri - dt. 28/4/85
S.No.63/232 3. Undated Jt. Statement
1 Acre of Jagdish Patil /
Gangaram Sawant
4. Zerox copy of
statement of Janardan
dt. 14/7/93
5. WS of land owner
6. Statement of Janardan
WP2539.12+127
dt. 19/4/01
7. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 12/2/99
34 Ten Case No.245/87 Rajaram Gopal A. 26/2002 -
(No record available) Bubera - LR R. 184/B/2003
Chandrakant -
LR Dashrath
S.No.78/51
1 Acre
35 Ten Case No.275/87 Mhadibai Lase A. 58/2002 1. Jt. Statement of
Typed appln. Dt. 21 S.No.78/79 R. 188/B/2003 Baliram Kawle/ Jagdish
Mar.87 (S.No.65/118) Patil - dt. 8/8/86
Undated amendment 1 Acre 2. Statement of Mhadibai
appln. Lase -dt. 8/8/86
ig 3. Undated statement of
Mhadibai
4. WS of landlords.
5. Statement of Mhadibai
Lase - dt. 14/6/01
36 Ten Case Kalibai - A. 51/2002 1. Statement of Kalibai
No.236/87 Balaram Gauri R. 189/B/2003 dt. 28/9/85
Typed appln. Dt. 21 S.No.78/72 2. Jt. Statement of
Mar.87 1 Acre Laxman Lakhe / Gana
Undated amendment Gulvi dt. 28/9/85.
appln. 3. Statement of Kalibai -
Undated (Not signed
by Tahsildar)
4. Statement of Kalibai
dt. 25/2/99
5. Statement of Kalibai
dt. 27/12/2000
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99 &
20/2/99
37 Ten Case No. 192/87 Krishna Shankar A.122/2002 1. Statement of
Typed appln. Dt.21 Patil LR - R. 190/B/2003 Gangabai dt. 8/8/86
Mar.87 Gangabai & 2. Jt. Statement of
Undated amendment Vasudeo Narayan Pawar /
appln. S.No.78/106 Pandurang Patil dt.
1 Acre 8/8/86
3. WS of Jairaj dt.
12/4/2001
4. Statement of
Gangabai dt.
22/5/2001
5 Copy of statement of
WP2539.12+127
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99.
38 Ten Case no. 223/87 Keshav Dharma A.119 / 2002 1. Statement of Keshav -
Typed appln. Bubera - LR R.191/B/2003 Undated
Dt. 21 Mar.87 Yeshwant - LR 2. Jt. Statement of
Undated amendment Datta Ramdas Patil /
appln. S. No.63/150 Shivram Dhumal -
20 Gunthas Undated
3. Statement of
Yeshwant dt. 20/7/93
4. Statement of Keshav -
undated
5. Statement of Datta-
dt. 12/4/2001
6. WS of Jairaj
7. Copy of Mutation dt.
ig 10/8/2000
8. 7/12 extract - 2000-01
9. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
39 Ten Case No. 266/87 Nago Pawar LR A.90/2002 1. Jt. Statement of
Typed appln. Janabai, R.192/B/2003 Janabai & Rajaram dt.
Dt. 21 Mar.87 Rajaram & 28/9/85
Amendment appln. Dt. Dwarkanath 2. Jt. Statement of
12/4/94 S.No.78/68 Ramdas Patil / Gana
1 Acre Gulvi dt. 28/9/85.
3. Undated statement of
Rajaram.
4. WS of Jairaj dt.
19/4/2001.
5. Statement of Rajaram
dt. 19/4/2001.
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99.
40 Ten Case No. Harishchandra A.81/2002 1. Statement of
152/87 Kawle - LR R:193/B/2003 Namabai Kawle -
Typed appln. Dt. 21 Namabai - LR undated.
Mar.87 Muktabai 2. Jt. Statemnt of
S.No.63/184A Krishna Bubera /
1 Acre Atmaram Kawle -
undated.
3. Statement of
Muktabai Patil - dt.
9/1/2001
4. WS of Jairaj dt.
17/4/2001
5. Statement of Jairaj
dt. 15/2/99
WP2539.12+127
41 Ten Case No. Atmaram Shiva A.56/2002 1. Statement of Atmaram
240/87 Gauri R.194/B/2003 dt. 8/8/86
Typed appln. S.No.78/114 2. Jt. Statement of
Dt. 21Mar.87 1 Acre Ramdas Pawar /
Undated amendment Subhash Salvi dt.
appln. 8/8/86
3. Undated statement of
Atmaram
4. Statement of Atmaram
dt. 25/2/99
5. Statement of Atmaram
dt. 27/12/2000
6. Statement of Jairaj dt.
20/2/99 & 15/2/99
Typed appln.
Sharad Budhaji
Patil
S.No.65/161
A.73/2002
R.195/B/2003
1. Statement of Sharad
dt. 28/4/85
2. Jt. Statement of
Dt. 21 Mar.87 1 Acre Padmakar / Gajanan
Fresh Appln. S. No.63/220 dt. 28/4/85
Dt. 15/12/2000 2 Acres added 3. 7/122 extract 1989-90
Undated amendment 4. Statement of Sharad -
appln. Undated
5. Statement of Sharad
dt. 15/12/200
confirming earlier
statement
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 20/2/99
43 Ten Case No. Pandurang A.70/2002 1. 7/12 extract of
151/87 Kathod Bhagat - R.196/B/2003 S.No.63 showing 22
Typed appln. LR Renuka names of cultivators.
Dt. 21 Mar.87 S.No.65/161/2 2. Jt. Statement of
Fresh Appln. 1 Acre Tulsibhai & Kundalik
Dt. 13/12/2000 S. No.63/161 dt. 28/4/85.
Undated amendment 1 Acre 3. Jt. Statement of
appln. S.No.78/107 Keshav / Vitho Patil dt.
1 Acre 28/4/85
4. Statement of
Parshuram Patil -
undated & not signed
by Tahsildar
5. Statement of
Parshuram
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 20/2/99
WP2539.12+127
153/87 Lase - LR R.197/B/2003
(No record available) Sitabai
S.No.63
1 Acre
45 Ten Case No. Parshuram A.47/2002 1. 7/12 extract of
150/87 Gajanan Patil R.198/B/2003 S.No.63 showing 22
Typed appln. S.No.63/203 cultivators.
Dt. 21Mar.87 1 Acre 2. Statement of
Undated amendment S. No.65/117 Parshuram dt. 28/4/85
appln. 1 Acre 3. Jt. Statement of
Keshav / Vitho Patil dt.
28/4/85
4. Statement of
Parshuram - undated
ig & not signed by
Tahsildar
5. Statement of
Parshuram
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 20/2/99
46 Ten Case No. 260/87 Sudhakar Patil A.80/2002 1. Statement of Bhagibai
Typed appln. LR-Bhagubai R.199/B/2003 dt. 8/8/86
Dt. 21 Mar.87 Patil 2. Jt. Statement of
Undated amendment S. No.78/100 Keshav Patil /
appln. 1 Acre Prabhakar Bubera dt.
8/8/86
3. Undated statement of
Bhagubai.
4. WS of landlord
5. Statement of
Bhagubai dt. 19/4/01
confirming earlier
statement
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
47 Ten Case No. 267/87 Janabai Sitaram A.108/2002 1. Statement of Janabai
Typed appln. Dt Mar.87 Pawar - LR R.200/B/2003 dt. 31/10/85
Undated amendment Jayram 2. Jt. Statement of
appln. S.No.78/52 & 41 Sitaram Pawar / Gana
2 Acres Gulbi
3. Undated statement of
Janabai
4. WS of land owners dt.
19/4/01
5 Statement of Janabai
WP2539.12+127
dt. 23/5/01
6. Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
48 TNC 221/87 Pandurang A.37/2002 1. Statement of
Typed application Gavali R.201/B/2003 Pandurang Gavali
March 1983 S.No.78, 2. Joint statement of
Undated amendment 1 acre Padmakar Patil and
application. As per amended Shankar Ghagat
S.No.65 3. Statement of
H.No.171,172 Pandurang Gavali
area 2 acres dated 21/7/1993
4. Statement of
Pandurang Gavali
dated 14/6/2001
49 TNC 279/87
Typed application
March 1983.
Gunibai Chahu
Patil
S.No.78,
A.111/2002
R.202/B/2003
1. Statement of Gunibai
Patil
2. Joint statement of
Undated amendment H. No.18 Raghunath Pawar and
application. 30 Gunthas Gana Gulvi dt.
L/R Dattaram 28.9.1985
Chahu Patil 3. Written Statement of
landlord
4. Statement of Attaram
Patil dated 23/5/2001
5. Statement of Rayraj
dated 15/2/2009
50 TNC 182/87 Budhya Padya A.84/2002 1. Statement of Budhya
Typed application Bhagat R.203/B/2003 dated 28.4.1985
March 1983. S.No.65, 2. Joint statement of
Undated amendment H. No.167 Vishnu Bhoir and
application. 7 Gunthas Ramdas Patil
3. Statement of Budhya
dated 11.4.1985
4. Copy of statement of
Jayraj dated 15/2/1999
51 TNC 162/87 Viththal Bhiva A.59/2002 1. Undated Statement of
Typed application Lhase R.204/B/2003 Viththal Bhiva Lhase.
March 1983. S.No.63, 2. Undated Joint
Undated amendment H. No.191 A Statement of Shankar
application. 1 acre Bhagat and Pundlik
Kavale
3. Statement of Viththal
Bhiva Lhase
52 TNC 177/87 Jayavant A.53/2002 1 Statement of 7/12
Typed application Shantram Patil R.205/B/2003 extract for the year
WP2539.12+127
March 1983. S.No.63, 1982-83 showing 25
Undated amendment H. No.269 names.
application. 1 acre 2. Statement of Jayavant
Patil dated 28.4.1985.
3. Joint Statement of
Gulab Patil and
Raghunath Kavale
4. Undated statement of
Jayavant Patil.
5. Statement of Jayavant
dated 20.2.1999
6. Statement of Jayraj
dated 20.2.1999
53 TNC 55/87 Gopinath A.27/2002 1. Statement of Gopinath
Typed application March Kashinath Patil R.206/B/2003 Kashinath Patil
1983.
Undated amendment
application.
ig S.No.73
1 acre
8.8.1986
2. Joint Statement of
Vishnu Bhoir and
Raghunath Kavale
dated 8.8.86
3. Written Statement of
landlord
4. Statement of Gopinath
Kashinath Patil dated
16.6.2001
54 TNC 211/87 Manaki Budhya A.50/2002 1. Statement of Manaki
Typed application March Bhagat R.207/B/2003 Budhya Bhagat
1983. S.No.78 8.8.1986.
Undated amendment H.No.95 2. Joint Statement of
application. 1 acre Datta & Prabhakar
Bubera
3. Statement of Manaki
Budhya Bhagat dated
20.7.1993
4. Undated Statement of
Bhudhya Bhagat.
5. Statement of Manaki
dated 24.2.1999
6. Statement of Jayaraj
dated 15.3.1999
55 TNC 187/87 Maruti Gana A.88/2002 1. Statement of Maruti
Typed application March Mhatre R.208/B/2003 Gana Mhatre
1983. S.No.78 28.8.1985
Undated amendment H.No.32 2. Joint Statement of
application. 1 acre Raghunath Pawar and
Mohan Kawale
3. Undated Statement of
Maruti Gana Mhatre
WP2539.12+127
4. Statement of Maruti
Gana Mhatre dated
11.4.2000
5. Statement of Manaki
dated 24.2.1999
6. Copy of Statement of
Jayaraj dated
15.2.1999
56 TNC 187/87 Namdev A.101/2002 1. Undated Statement of
Typed application March Ramchandra R.209/B/2003 Namdev Ramchandra
1983. Pawar Pawar.
Undated amendment S.No.78 2. Undated Joint
application. H.No.30 Statement of Narayan
1 acre and Pundlik Pawar
3. Carbon copy of
ig statement of Namdev
Pawar dated 20.7.93
4. Statement of Namdev
Ramchandra Pawar
23.11.2000 confirming
earlier statement
5. Written Statement of
land lord
6. Statement of Jayaraj
57 TNC 113/87 Sitabai Posha A.20/2002 ------
Record not available Patil R.210/B/2003
L/R Sunil
Parshuram Patil
and Bhanudas
Dashrath Patil
S.No.63
40 Gunthas
58 TNC 278/87 Ramkrishna A.22/2002 1. 7/12 extract of
Typed application March Sakharam R.211/B/2003 S.No.63 with 25
1983. Bubera names of cultivators.
Undated amendment Dhanubai 2. Statement of
application. Bubera Dhanubai Bubera
S.No.63 dated 28.4.1985.
H.No.250 3. Carbon copy of
1 acre statement of Namdev
Pawar 20.7.93
4. Joint Statement of
Pundlik Kavale &
Padmakar Patil
5. Undated Statement of
Dhanubai
6. Written statement of
landlord
WP2539.12+127
7. M.E. dated 14.5.2001
8. Statement of
Dhanubai dated
12.6.2001
6. Statement of Jayaraj
dated 20.2.1999
59 TNC 154/87 Jagdish Balaram A.20/2002 ---
Record not available Patil R.212/B/2003
S.No.63
1 acre
60 TNC 253/87 Chandrakant A.58/2002 1. Undated Statement of
Typed application March Motiram Pawar R.213/B/2003 Chandrakant Motiram
1983. S.No.78 Pawar
Undated amendment H.No.31 2. Undated Joint
application.
ig1 acre Statement of Dashrat
& Vishnu Patil
3. Undated Statement of
Chandrakant Motiram
Pawar
4. Statement of
Chandrakant Motiram
Pawar 15.2.199
61 TNC 178/87 Arjun Ragho A.62/2002 1. 7/12 extract for the
Typed application March Patil R.214/B/2003 year 1982-83
1983. S.No.63 2. Statement of Arjun
Undated amendment H.No.227 Ragho Patil 28.4.85
application. 30 Gunthas 3. Joint Statement of
Savant and Datta
Bhoir 28.4.85
4. Undated Statement of
Arjun Ragho Patil
5. Statement of Arjun
Ragho Patil 20.2.1999
62 TNC 184/87 Budhya Dharma A.33/2002 1. 7/12 extract with 25
Typed application March Bubera R.215/B/2003 names of cultivators
1983. L/R Sajan for 1982-83
Undated amendment Bubera 2. Statement of Budhya
application. S.No.63 Dharma Bubera
H.No.236 B 28.4.84
1 acre 3. Joint Statement of K.J.
Patil and Balaram
Bhoir 28.4.84
4. Statement of Budhya
L/R Pandurang Bubera
22.7.93
5. Written Statement of
landlord
6. Statement of Sajan
WP2539.12+127
Bubera dated
12.6.2001
63 TNC 190/87 Ramchandra A.75/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed application March Patil R.216/B/2003 Bayabai Patil
1983. L/R Bayabai 2. Undated joint
Undated amendment Patil statement of Viththal
application. S.No.65 & Thakray Lase
H.No.120 3. Statement of Bayabai
22 Gunthas Patil dated 20.2.1999
4. Copy of statement of
Jayraj dated 15.2.1999
64 TNC 157/87 Rajaram Gopal A.25/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed application March Bubera L/R R.217/B/2003 Chandrakant Bubera
1983. Chandrakant & 2. Undated Joint
Undated amendment Dashrath statement of
application.
ig Bubera
S.No.63
H.No.208 +199
Dasharath Patil and
Pandurang Kavale.
3. Undated statement of
1 acre Chandrakant Bubera
4. Written statement of
landlord
5. Statement of
Dasharath dated
16.6.2001
6. M.E. No.649 dated
8.5.1995
65 TNC 186/87 Umabai A.23/2002 1. Statement of Umabai
Typed application March Kacharya L/R R.218/B/2003 Kacharya 28.9.1985
1983. Bharati Gupte 2. Joint statement of
Undated amendment S.No.78 Gana Gulavi &
application. H.No.13 Shantaram 28.9.85
1 acre 3. Undated statement of
Umabai Kachary
4. Written Statement of
landlord
5. Statement of Bharati
Gupte
66 TNC 155/87 Ganapat A.107/2002 A) Undated Statement of
Typed application March Narayan Patil R.219/B/2003 Ganapat Narayan Patil
1983. L/R Chandubai B) Joint statement of
Undated amendment Pandurang Patil Padamakar Patil &
application. S.No.72 Gana Gulavi
H.No.82 C) Undated statement of
1 acre Pandurang Patil
D) Statement of
Chandubai Patil dated
24.5.1999
E) Copy of statement of
Jayaraj dated
15.2.1999
WP2539.12+127
67 TNC 224/87 Typed Balaram A. 43/2002 1. Statement of Balaram
Application Posha Bhoir R.220/B/2003 Posha, Bhoir
March 1983. S.No.65 28.4.1985
Undated H.No.173 2. Joint statement of
amendment 1 acre Pandurang Gauri and
application. Gopinath Gauri
28.4.1985
3. Statement of Balaram
Posha Bhoir 20.7.1993
4. Statement of Balaram
Bhoir dated 24.2.1999
5. Copy of statement of
Jayaraj dated
15.2.1999
68 Ten. Case Natha A.28/2002 1. Undated statement of
No.222/87 Sitaram Patil R.221/B/2003 Natha
Typed appln.
Dt. 21 Mar. 87
S.No.78/62
1 Acre
2. Undated Jt. Statement
of Kashinath / Vasant
Patil
3. Statement of Natha
dt.23/11/2000
4. WS of landlords
69 Ten. Case Balibai Thakrya A.100/2002 1. 7/12 extract 1982-83
No.193/7 Fulore R.222/B/2003 with 22 names
Typed appln. S.No.63/259 2. Undated statement of
Dt. 21 Mar. 87 1 Acre Balibai
Undated S.No.78/97 3. Undated Jt. Statement
amendment (Amended) Pundlik Kawle/
appln. Pandurang Bhagat
4. Undated statement of
Balibai
5. WS of land owner
6. Statement of Balibai
dt. 22/5/2001
7. Statement of Jairaj dt.
15/2/99
70 Ten. Case No. Motiram A.40/2002 1. Statement of
273/87 Sukur R.223/B/2003 Motiram (undated)
Typed appln. Gauri - LR 2. Undated Jt.
Dt21 Mar.87 Sugandha Statement Balibai
Undated Motiram Fulore / Dhanubai
amendment appln. Gauri Bubera
S.No.63/183A 3. Undated statement
1 Acre of Sugandha Gauri
4. WS of landlord
5. Statement of
Sugandha Gauri dt.
14/6/2001
WP2539.12+127
71 Ten. Case No. Gopinath A.78/2002 1. Statement of
195/87 Gauri - LR R.224/B/2003 Gopinath
Typed appln. Shantabai dt. 28/4/85
Dt.21 Mar.87 Gopinath 2. Jt. Statement of
Fresh Appln. Gauri Balaram Bhoir/
Dt. 9/7/93- S.No.65/179B Kashinath Patil
(After remand) 1 Acre dt.28/4/85
Undated 3. WS for landlords
amendment 4. 7/12 extract 2000-01
appln. 5. Statement of
Shantabai Gauri
dt. 12/4/2001
6. Statement of
Jairaj dt.15/2/99
72 Ten. Case No. Natha Sitaram A.31/2002 1 Undated statement of
227/87 Patil R.226/B/2003 Natha
Typed appln.
Dt. 21 Mar.87
S.No.63/195
30 gunthas
2 Undated Jt. Statement of
Kashinath /Vasant Patil
3. WS of landlords
4. Statement of Natha
dt.15/6/2001
73 Ten. Case No. Maruti Krishna A.48/2002 1. 7/12 extract of 1982-83
148/87 Bubera - LR R.227/B/2003 2. Statement of Maruti dt.
Typed appln. Janabai Gaikar 28/4/85.
Dt. 21 Mar.87 S.No.63/35 3. Jt. Statement Padmakar/
Amendment appln. 1 Acre Kanha Patil dt. 28/4/85
Dt.15/12/2000 4. Statement of Maruti
Bubera dt 15/12/2000
74 Ten. Case No. Balaram A.79/2002 1. Statement of Laxmi
197/87 Typed appln. Sakharam R.228/B/2003 dt.28/9/85
Dt.21 Mar.87 Undated Bubera- LR 2. Jt. Statement Gana
amendment Laxmi Gulvi/Maruti Mhatre
appln. S.No,78/58 dt.28/9/85
1 Acre 3. Undated statement of
Laxmi
4. WS of landlord
5. Statement of Laxmi
dt.17/4/2001
6. Statement of Jairaj dt.
15/2/1999
75 Ten. Case No. Balaram A.92/2002 1. Statement of Balaram
261/87 Bama R.229/B/2003 dt.28/9/85
Typed appln. Patil 2. Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87 S.No.78/33+4 Raghunath Pawar/
Undated amendment 0 Laxman Lase
appln 2 Acres 3. Undated statement of
Balaram Patil
4. WS of landlord
5. Statement of
Balaram
WP2539.12+127
dt.19/4/2001
confirming earlier
statement.
6. Statement of Jairaj
dated 15/2/99
76 Ten. Case No. Eknath Hira A.57/2002 1. Statement of Eknath
218/87 Kawle R.230/B/2003 dt.8/8/86
Typed appln. S.No.78/39 2. Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87 1 Acre Atmaram Mhatre /
Undated amendment Datta Fulore dt. 8/8/86
appln 3. Undated statement of
Eknath
4. Statement of Eknath
dt.24/2/99
77 TNC 130/87 Balkrishna A. 77/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed Mahadu Patil R.231/B/2003 Balkrishna Mahadu Patil
application
March 1983.
Undated
S.No.63
H.No.188/189
2 acre.
2. Undated joint statement
of Krishan Bubera and
Shankar Bhagat
Amendment Amended as 3. Statement of Kamalakar
application. Patil dated 20.7.1993
S.No.63
H.No.184 4. Undated statement of
L/R Kamalakar Balkrishna Mahadu
Balkrishna Patil Patil
5. 7/12 extract for the
year 2000-01
6. Khate Utara dated
29.9.2000
7. Statement of
Kamalakar Patil dated
12.1.01 for 2 cases
8. Written statement of
landlord.
9. Statement of
Kamalakar Patil
dated 12.4.2001
78 TNC 210/87 Vishnu Janu A. 115/2002 1. 7/12 extract for the year
Typed application Bhoir R.232/B/2003 1985-86 S.No.68
March 1983 S.No.68 2. Statement of Vishnu
Undated 33.9 Gunthas Janu Bhoir dated
amendment 8.8.1986
application 3. Joint statement of
Kana Patil &
Raghunath Joshi
8.8.86
4. Undated statement of
Vishnu Janu Bhoir
5. Undated statement of
Vishnu Janu Bhoir
6 Statement of Vishnu
Janu Bhoir dated
WP2539.12+127
25.5.2001 for S.No.63,1
acre
7. Written statement of
landlord.
8. Copy of statement of
Jayraj dated
15.2.1999
79 TNC 197/87 Balaram A. 96/2002
Record not Sakharam R.233/B/2003
available. Bubera L/R
Laxmibai -
Bubera.
S.No.63
40 Gunthas
80 TNC 160/87 Jayaram Rama A. 49/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed Bahire R.238/B/2003 Jayaram Rama Bahire
application
March 1983.
Fresh application
S.No.63
H.No.205
1 acre
2. Undated statement of
Jayaram Bahare,
Pundlik Kavale and
dated 15.12.2002 Dhanaji Madhavi.
3. Joint statement of Kana
Patil & Raghunath
Joshi 8.8.86
4. Statement of Jayaram
dated 15.12.2001
81 TNC 260/87 Sudhakar A. 97/2002
1. Zerox copy of 7/12
Record not Krishna Patil R.239/B/2003
extract for the yare
available. UR Bhagibai
1969-70
Patil
S.No.78,
4 Guntha
82 TNC 237/87 Dattraya A. 95/2002 1. Statement of Dattraya
Typed Songya R.240/B/2003 Mhatre dated 8.8.1986
application Mhatre 2. Joint statement of Anant
March 1983. L/R Vanita Bhoir and Pandurang
Undated Dattatraya Bubere
amendment Mhatre 3 7/12 extract for the year
application. S.No. 78 2000-01
H.No.92 4 Written statement of
1 acre landlord
5 Joint statement of
Narendra Mhatre and
Arun Mhatre and
Ramesh Mhatre
6 Statement of Jayraj
Sonawala dated
15.2.1999
83 TNC 243/87 Bhai Naga Patil A. 91/2002 1. Statement of Bhai Naga
Typed L/R Sumitra R.241/B/2003 Patil 31.10.19852.
Joint-statement of
WP2539.12+127
Application Patil Thakrya Lase and
March 1983. S.No. 78 Chandrakant Bubera
Undated H.No.55 dated 31.10.1985
amendment 1 acre 3. Undated statement of
application Sumitra Patil
4. 7/12 extract for the yare
2000-01
5. M.E.No.700 in the name
of Sumitra Patil.
6. Written statement of
landlord
7 Statement of Sumitra
Patil 17.4.2001
8 Statement of Jayraj
Sonawala dated
15.2.1999
84 TNC 148/87 Ramesh
ig A. 72/2002 1 7/12 extract for the yare
Typed Padamakar Patil R.242/B/2003 1982-83
application S.No.63 2 Statement of Ramesh
March 1983. H.No.251 B Patil dated 28.4.1984
Undated 20 Gunthas 3 Joint statement of
amendment Vishnu Bhoir and Gopal
application Patil 28.4.1984
4 Statement of Ramesh
Patil dated 15.12.2000
5 Claims tenancy for
S.No.65
6 Written statement of
landlord
7 Statement of Sumitra
Patil 17.4.2001
8 Statement of Jayraj
Sonawala dated
15.2.1999
85 TNC 226/87 Ramchandra A. 41/2002 1. Statement of
Typed Maya Salavi L/R R.243/B/2003 Ramchadra Salavi
application Vasu Devu 8.8.1986
March 1983. Savali 2. Joint statement of
Undated and S.No.78, Laxman and Shankar
unsigned H.No.99 Mhatre 8.8.86
amendment 1 acre 3 Written statement of
application. landlord.
4 Statement of Ramchadra
Salavi dated 27.6.2001
86 TNC 166/87 Dharma A. 41/2002 1. 7/2 extract for the year
Typed application Chango R.243/B/2003 1982-83
March 1983. Patil, L/R Vikas 2. Statement of Dharma
Undated Dharma Patil Patil dated 8.8.1986
amendment S.No.63 3. Joint statement of Anant
application. 1 acre Bhoir and Pandurang
Bhoir dated 8.8.1986
WP2539.12+127
4. Statement of Dharma
Patil dated 19.2.1999
5. Statement of Jayraj
Sonawala dated
15.2.1999
87 TNC 220/87 Harishchandra A. 105/2002
Record not Bubera L/R R:246/B/2003
Available. Bhagan and
-
Janabai Bubera
S.No.63,
30 Gntgha
88 TNC 129/87 Balkrishna A. 76/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed Mahadu Patil R.247/B/2003 Balkrishna Mahadu Patil
application L/R Kamalakar 2 Undated joint statement
21 March 1983. Patil of Krishna Bubera and
Undated S.No.63 Shankar Bhagat
amendment
application.
H.No.184
1 acre
Statement of Kamalakar
Patil dated 12.1.2001 oint
7/12 extract for the year
1999- 2000
5 Written statement of
landlord
6 Statement of Kamalakar
dated 12.4.2001
89 TNC 173/87 Manik Budhaji A. 45/2002 1 Statement of Manik
Typed Bubera L/R R.249/B/2003 Budhaji Bubera
application Leela Bubera 31.10.1985
March 1983. S.No.78/42 2 Joint statement of
Undated 30 Gunthas Chandrakant and Sitaram
amendment 31.10.1985
application 3 Statement of Manik
Budhaji Bubera
22.7.1993
4 Statement of Manik
Budhaji Bubera
25.2.1999
5 Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
90 TNC 242/87 Krishna A. 35/2002 1. Undated statement of
Typed Mahadu R.248/B/2003 Krishna Mahadu Bubera
application March Bubera 2 Undated joint
1983. L/R Prabhakar, statement of Pundlik
Undated Shashikala Kavale and Shivaram
amendment and Dhumale.
application Chandrakant 3 Statement of Krishna
S.No.63/182A Mahadu Bubera dated
&B 15.6.2001
2 acre 4 Written statement of
landlord
5 Statement of Kamalakar
dated 12.4.2001
WP2539.12+127
91 TNC 277/87 Typed Chango A. 112/2002 1 Statement of Chango
application March Sudam R.250/B/2003 Sudam Madhavi
1983. Undated Madhavi 8.8.1986
amendment S.No.78 2. Joint statement of
application. H.No.96 Narayan Pawar and
Pandurang Patil dated
8.8.1986
3 Undated statement of
Chango Sudam Madhavi
4 Written statement of
landlord
5 Statement of Chango
Sudam Madhavi
23.5.2001
ig 6 Statement of Jayraj
92 Ten. Case No. Raghunath A.66/2002 1. Statement of Raghunath
238/87 Shankar Gauri R.251/B/2003 2. Jt. Statement of Kanha
Typed appln. S.No.78/108 Patil/ Vishnu Bhoir
Dt.21 Mar.87 Undated 1 Acre 3 Statement of
amendment appln. Raghunath dt.25/2/99
4 Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt.20/2/99
93 Ten. Case No. Balibai Patil- LR A.30/2002 1 Undated statement of
72/87 Vitho Ambo R.252/B/2003 Vitho Patil
Typed appln. Patil 2 Undated Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87 - LR Motubai Kanha/ Raghunath Patil
Undated Patil 3 Statement of Motubai
amendment appln. S.No.65 Vitho Patil dt
1 Acre 27/6/2001
94 Ten. Case No. Atmaram Kawle A.69/2002 1 Undated statement of
156/87 S.No.63/192 R.253/B/2003 Atmaram Kawle
Typed appln. 1 Acre 2 Undated Jt.statement of
Dt.21 Mar. 87 Pundlik Kawle /
Undated Kashinath Patil
amendment 3. Undated statement of
appln. Atmaram Kawle
4. Statement of Atmaram
dt.29/12/00
confirming earlier
statement
5. Copy of statement of
Jairaj -landlord dt.
20/2/99.
95 Ten. Case No. Dharma A.82/2002 1 7/12 extract of S.No.63
180/87 Chango R.254/B/2003 2 Undated application of
Typed appln. Patil LR-Vikas Dharma
Dt.21 Mar.87 Dharma Patil 3 Undated Jt. Statement of
Undated S.No.63/200 Krishna Bubera/ Vitho
WP2539.12+127
amendment 1 Acre Patil
appln. 4 Statement dt.22/7/93 of
Dharma Patil claiming
tenancy for S.No.63/249
-1 Acre & S.No.65 -1
Acre
5 Statement of Dharma
confirming earlier
statement
dt.11/4/2001
6 Copy of statement of
Jairaj dt. 15/2/99
219/87 Salvi- LR R.255/B/2003
(Record not Shashikant
-
available) Salvi
S.No.78
40 Guntha
Krishna Mahadu A.52/2002 1 Statement of Krishna
230/87 Bubera LR- R.258/B/2003 Bubera dt.31/10/85
Typed appln. Prabhakar 2 Jt. Statement of Manik
Dt.21 Mar.87 S.No.78/74 Bubera/Gana Gulvi
Undated 1 Acre dt.31/10/85
amendment 3 Undated statement of
appln. Krishna Bubera - claimed
tenancy on S.No.63/74,
78/242 and 63/182 (Total
5 acres)
4 Statement of Krishna
Bubera dated 27/12/2000
confirming earlier
statement.
5 Statement of Jairaj
dt.20/2/99
98 TNC 207/87 Shankar A. 141/2002 A) Statement of Shankar
Typed Namdev Mhatre R.171/B/2003 Namdev Mhatre 8.8.1986
application S.No.78 B) Joint statement of Anant
March 1983. H.No.136 Bhoir and Pandurang
Undated Changed by Bubera dated 8.8.1986
amendment amendment as C) Statement of Shankar
application. S.No.73, Mhatre 13.9.01 after
H.No.44 remand
99 TNC 234/87 Sadavi Lase A. 142/2002 A) Statement of Sadavi Lase
Typed L/R Savitri Lase R.172/B/2003 8.8.1986
application S.No.78, B) Joint statement of
March 1983 H.No.105 Prabhakar Bubera and
amended Sharad Patil dated
application 8.8.1986
12.4.1994 C) Written statement of
landlord
D) Statement of Jayraj
WP2539.12+127
20.2.1999
E) Statement of Savitribai
25.7.2001
100 TNC 174/87 Kashinath A. 145/2002 A) 7/12 extract of S.No.63
Typed Mahadu Pavale R.175 for the year 1982-83
application S.No.63, B) Statement of Kashinath
March 1983. H.No.268 Mahadu Pavale dated
undated 28.4.1985
amendment C) Joint statement of Jayant
application Patil and Arjun Patil
D) Statement of Kashinath
Mahadu Pavale 20.2.1999
E) Statement of Savitribai
25.7.2001
F) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
101 TNC 175/87
Typed
Application
Ramdas Nama
Pawar
S.No.78,
A. 146
R.176
A) Statement of Ramdas
Nama Pawar 8.8.1986
B) Joint statement of
March1983. H.No.101 Budhya Bhagat and
undated 1 acre Subhash Salavi
amendment C) Statement of Ramdas
application Nama Pawar 20.7.2001.
D) Statement of Kashinath
Mahadu Pavale
20.2.1999
E) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
102 TNC 56/87 Dattatraya A. 147 A) Statement of Dattatraya
Typed Sitaram Gauri R.177 Sitaram Gauri 8.8.1986
application L/R Laxmibai B) Joint statement of Kana
March 1983 Gauri Patil and Ragadish Patil
undated 8.8.86
amendment C) Statement of Jayraj
application by 15.2.1999
Laxmibai D) Statement of R Laxmibai
Gauri 14.9.2001
103 TNC 139/87 Dharma Bubera A. 148/2002 A) Undated statement of
Typed L/R Savitribai R.177/B/2005 Dharma Bubera
application Bubera. B) Joint statement of
March 1983. S.No.63 Krishna Bubera and
undated H.No.152 Raghunath Patil.
amendment d 1 acre C) Undated statement of
application Dharma Bubera.
D) Written statement of
landlord
E) Statement of Savitribai
Dharma Bubera
14.9.2001
104 TNC 164/87 Typed Arjun Bubera A. 149/2002 A) Statement of Arjun
application L/R Bhimabai R.179/B/2005 Bubera 14.2.1984
March 1983. Arjun Bubera. B) Undated statement of
WP2539.12+127
undated S.No.63 Arjun Bubera.
amendment H.No.194 C) Undated joint dated
application. 1 acre statement of Krishna
Bubera and Gana Gulavi.
D) Statement of Bhimabai
Bubera 14.2.2001
E) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
105 TNC 165/87 Mahadu Babu A. 150/2002 A) Statement of Kashinath
Typed Patil R.180/B/2005 Patil 28.4.1985
application L/R Kashinath B) Joint statement of
March 1983. Mahadu Patil Gopinath Gauri and Gana
undated S.No.65 Gulavi.
amendment H.No.180 C) Statement of Kashinath
application. 30 Gunthas Mahadu Patil..
106 TNC 168/87 Shankar Krishna A. 151/2002 A) Undated statement of
Typed
application
March 1983.
Shilkar
L/R Bhagirathi
Kavale
R.181/B/2005 Shankar Krishna Shilkar
B) Undated joint statement
of Anant Bhoir and Rama
undated (Daughter) Mhatre
amendment S.No.63 C) Statement of Bhagirathi
application. H.No.145 Kavale 14.9.2001.
1 acre D) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
107 TNC 169/87 Motiram Shiva A. 152/2002 A) Statement of Motiram
Typed Gauri R.182/B/2005 Shiva Gauri 28.4.1985
application L/R Sanjay B) Joint statement of
March 1983. Motiram Ramdas Pawar and
undated S.No.63 Shankar Bhagat 28.4.85
amendment 1 acre C) 7/12 extract for the year
application. 2001-02
D) Statement of Krishna
20.7.2001
E) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
108 TNC 171/87 Krishna Dharma A. 155/02 A) Statement of Dharma
Typed Patil R.184/B/2005 28.4.1985
application S.No.63 B) Joint statement of
March 1983. 1 acre Jagadish Patil and Datta
undated Bhoir
amendment C) Undated statement of
application. Motiram Gauri.
D) Statement of Motiram
Shiva Gauri 20.7.2001
E) Statement of Jayraj
15.2.1999
109 TNC 53/87 Ganapat A. 156/2002
Record not Narayan Patil R.185/B/2005
-
Available. L/R Chandubai
Pandurang Patil
110 TNC 47/87 Laxman Salavi A. 157/2002 A) Undated statement of
Typed L/R Kashibai R.186/B/2005 Laxman Salavi
WP2539.12+127
application Laxman Salavi B) Undated Joint statement
March 1983. of Padmakar Patil and
undated Shankar Bhagat.
amendment C) Statement of P/A
application. Rakesh Salavi
14.9.2001
D) Statement of Jayraj
20.2.1999
111 Ten. Case No. Vasant Chango A.54/2003 1 Statement of Vasant
225/87 Kawle (Insane) R.222/B/2005 dt.28/9/85
Typed appln. LR 1. Mhadibai, 2 Jt .Statement of Laxman
Dt.21 Mar.87 2. Nanibai Lase/ Keshav Bubera
Undated S.No.78/59 dt.28/9/85
amendment 1 Acre 3 Undated statement of
appln. Mhadibai
4 WS of landlord
ig 5 Statement of Mhadibai
dt. 24/5/2001
6 Statement of Jairaj dt.
15/2/99
112 Ten. Case No. Damodar A.55/2003 1 Statement of Damodar dt.
269/87 Dharma R.223/B/2005 8/8/86
Typed appln. Bubera 2. Jt. Statement of Jagdish
Dt.21 Mar. 87 S.No.78/91 and Kashinath Patil dt.
Undated 1 Acre 8/8/86
amendment 3. Statement of Damodar-
appln. undated
4 WS of landlord
5 Statement of
Damodar Bubera
dt.23/5/2001
6 Statement of Jairaj
dt.15/2/99
113 Ten. Case No. Keshav Dharma A.50/2003 1. Undated statement of
199/87 Bubera- LR R.218/B/2005 Keshav
Typed appln. Dattaram 2 Undated Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87 S.No.63/201 Vasant Patil / Dashrath
+185 Patil
2 Acres 3 Statement of Dattaram
Keshav- 14/6/2001
4 7/12 extract 2000-01 of
S.No.78
114 Ten. Case No. Harishchandra A.51/2003 1 Undated statement of
181/87 Bubera - LR R.219/B/2005 Kashinath
Typed appln. Bhagwan - LR 2 Undated Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87 Janabai Gana Gulvi/ Atmaram
Undated S.No.63/236 Kawle
amendment 30.4 Gunthas 3 Undated statement of
appln. Kashinath
4 WS of landlord
5 Statement of
Kashinath
WP2539.12+127
dt.23/5/2001
6 Statement of Jairaj dt.
15/2/99
115 Ten. Case No. Sitabai Posha A.56/2003 1 Cyclostyled statement
268/87 Patil - LR Sunil R.224/B/2005 dt.31/10/85 in torn
Typed appln. Parshuram Patil condition
Dt.21 Mar.87 S.No.63/183 2 Statement of Sunil
Undated Parshuram-undated
amendment 3 WS of landlord
appln. 4 Statement of Jairaj
dt.20/2/99
5 Statement of Sunil
dt.12/6/2001
116 Ten. Case No. Baliram Chango A.57/2003 1 Statement of Baliram
188/87 Kawle - LR R.225/B/2005 dt.8/8/86
Typed appln. Sundarabai 2 Jt. Statement of
Dt.21 Mar.87
Amendment
appln. Dt.11/4/94
S.No.78/1
1 Acre
Chandrakant/
Raghunath Patil dt.8/8/86
Undated statement of
Baliram
4 WS of landlord
5 Statement of Sundarabai
Kawle
117 Ten. Case No. Pandurang A.58/2003 1 Statement of Pandurang
249/87 Kathod Bhagat R.226/B/2005 dt. 8/8/86
Typed appln. - 2 Jt. Statement of Ramdas
Dt.21 Mar.87. LR Renuka Pawar- Subhash Salvi
Undated S.No.78/107 3 WS of landlord
amendment 1 Acre 4 Statement of
appln. Pandurang dt.15/4/01
5 Statement of Jairaj dt.
15/2/99
118 Ten. Case No. Raghunath A.59/2003 1 Statement of Raghunath
280/87 Pawar R.227/B/2005 dt.28/9/85
Typed appln. S.No.78/17 2 Jt. Statement of Ramdas
Dt.21 Mar.87. 30 Gunthas Patil/ Gana Gulvi
Undated dt.28/9/85
amendment 3 Undated statement of
appln. Raghunath
4 WS of landlord
5 Statement of
Raghunath dt.23/5/01
6 Statement of Jairaj
dt.15/2/99
WP2539.12+127
119 Ten. Case No. Motiram Sukur A.60/2003 1 W.S. of landlord
183/87 Gauri- LR R.228/B/2005 2 Statement of
Typed appln. Sungahda Sugandha Gauri
Dt. 21 Mar.87 (in dt.29/5/2001
torn condition) S.No.78
Undated 1 Acre
amendment
appln. (in torn
condition)
23 Based on this, the Tribunal concludes that all applicants
together approached the Tahsildar in March, 1983 filing cyclostyled
applications purported to be one under Section 70(b) without giving
particulars of the tenancy and also admitting ownership of landlords.
Each one of them claimed possession since 20-22 years. There is no
reference or co-relation of the claim with that of the tiller's day. In
all cases, on examination of record, the cyclostyled statements and
contents thereof were disbelieved. There is absolutely no
documentary evidence, save and except, introducing certain 7/12
extracts, but none of the persons coming forward and deposing with
regard to their contents. Then there is an attempt to improve upon
the original cases by filing amendment applications. The Tribunal
concludes that, if the present petitioners/predecessors before me had
purchased these lands in the year 1965 and they were not the
owners on tiller's day, then, the details of tenancy with reference to
WP2539.12+127
the landlords, their entity, the date of commencement of the alleged
tenancy, the quantum of rent, the mode of payment, are pertinent
details which are lacking in each of these cases. If there is no
pleading and even after permission there is no documentary
evidence, except production of mutation entries, and the Tribunal
has concluded that none of the applicants can be believed, then, one
fails to understand as to why in the ultimate analysis and as a final
conclusion a remand is warranted.
24 It would, therefore, be necessary to refer to certain findings of
the Tribunal but instead of making reference to them, it would be
better if some observations and conclusions of the Tribunal are
reproduced :-
"Now submission is advanced in the written notes of
arguments that there is admission from the landlords
about status of present petitioners to be tenants. Along
with the notes of arguments filed on behalf of tenants,
said statement of Jairaj is produced to show landlord's
admission. Copy of statement of one of the tenants, by
name, Chandrakant Pawar is tried to be relied upon as a
proof of tenant's possession over the property.
Chandrakant Pawar, in his statement, has stated that land
S.No.78/31 is in his possession since 45 years and he was
paying rent in kinds, but possessing no receipt. In this
statement, he has stated that Chandrakant Shah is the
WP2539.12+127
owner of this property. He has not even disclosed the
names of earlier owners to whom rent was alleged to have
been paid. Chandrakant Shah purchased this property in
1965. This witness claims possession over the property
and payment of rent since 45 years. So, it is an attempt to
show that he was in possession on Tiller's day.
Chandrakant Shah was not the owner of this property on
Tiller's day. This tenant is not disclosing the name of the
land owner to whom rent was paid, so, such a evidence
cannot be accepted to be a valid evidence to establish the
tenancy. He made attempt to show that Kharland Board
carried out maintenance of this property by erecting
bunds and according to him, landlord entered into
agreement with some of the tenants to purchase the lands
from them. When cross-examined, he has stated that
name of his father is appearing in 7/12 extract and gave
statement that he will produce the same later on. But in
further cross, he admitted that name of his father was
never recorded to be a tenant, nor he is having knowledge
whether his father filed any application. Though he
contends that these landlords agreed to purchase the
property from tenants, in cross, he has stated that this is
his hear-say knowledge. So, the evidence of this witness
does not prove anything including admission of the
landlord. Statement of one Pundalik Bhoir is also
produced along with the written arguments who claims
that for S.No.78 admeasuring 30 gunthas he filed
application under Section 70(b). He gave general
statement that rent in kinds used to be paid to landlord
and landlord never came to cultivate the land. There is no
cross-examination of this witness. Along with notes of
arguments, tenants produced statement of landlord Jairaj
to show his admission about tenancy. In his examination-
in-chief he has specifically stated that he has not leased
out land to any tenant. According to him, the disputed
300 acres land is at one place and it is not suitable for
cultivation as the land submerges in sea-water. He has
admitted that his father purchased these properties by
WP2539.12+127
way of investment. He has denied that previous land
owners leased out these properties to tenants. When he
was cross-examined, it was asked to him whether
Chandrakant Motiram and Parshuram Mhatre cultivated
this land and he pleaded ignorance. To prove so-called
admission of tenancy, reliance is placed on his statement
in cross. In the cross-examination he gave statement that
he entered into agreement to purchase and develop
properties from some of the tenants and this is a qualified
statement made by him that such an agreement was made
only with a view that the cases should be disposed of as
early as possible. This is not an admission admitting
tenancy of any particular person. But it is an ambiguous
statement that with some tenants, he entered into
agreement of sale as well as development agreement,
which cannot be treated to be an admission admitting
tenancy in favour of any person. He admits that to 10
tenants payment was being made from his account, but
who are those tenants is not brought on record. As such,
his admission is that with some tenants, he entered into
agreement, not admitting tenancy in favour of a particular
person. As referred to above, on examination of the
records, it is noticed that in no case proper procedure is
followed. In some cases, (very few) out of these petitions,
the cross-examination of applicant was held. Two of such
cases are referred above, which also did not give details of
creation of tenancy by any particular person or their
possession or the details of payment of rents."
Thus, in the case of Chandrakant Pawar and Pundlik Bhoir, the
Tribunal has made above observations and has further held that, in
the two other cases which are taken as sample ones initiated by
Dharma Bubera through his legal representative Savitri Bubera and
WP2539.12+127
Shankar Mhatre, the conclusions are identical, then, one fails to
understand as to what could be the circumstances and factors
causing a decision leading to remand of these cases back to the
authorities.
25 In paragraph 18 of the Tribunal's order, the four instances and
cross-examination of the applicants therein demonstrated the fallacy
in their cases and the Tribunal's conclusion is that there is nothing
which would indicate that these persons were aware of the title to
the lands nor have they proved the case of their tenancy, their
ignorance of their landlords and absence of documents would mean
that there is no valid evidence so as to declare any of these persons
as tenants. The Tribunal then proceeds to fault the Tahsildar for
having declared them as such. If Tribunal upholds the S.D.O.'s order
in appeal setting aside the order of the Tahsildar, then, one fails to
understand as to why the revision applications were not dismissed
outright. The Tribunals' observations are very pertinent and it is held
that in almost all the cases there are statements of tenants who are
not even cross-examined on behalf of landlords and nothing is there
WP2539.12+127
on record to show that opportunity was given to them to examine
other witnesses. However, sheer number of cases or the land
admeasuring 300 acres is no ground to order a remand. If the fate of
200 villagers and their families is at stake and such villagers had
ample opportunities in the form of repeated remands and they can
avail legal advise and approached all Authorities up-to Tribunal,
then, it is not as if on account of poverty, illiteracy or social
handicaps or lack of information and knowledge that their cases
have suffered. The parties cannot be accommodated on some
spacious ground. Ultimately, a liberal approach in social causes does
not mean that the Court must show undue sympathy and
accommodate parties repeatedly. Courts of justice have to be firm at
some stage and balance equities and rights. By unnecessarily
prolonging the cases and enquiries of this nature, the Court should
not encourage uncertainty. A uncertainty and equally
unpredictability have often been taken advantage by those who may
not be the concerned or necessary parties. Lot of persons and
entities peep into litigations which are prolonged and endless. In
such circumstances, it is equally the duty of a Judicial Tribunal
WP2539.12+127
exercising revisional power and being manned by a retired Judge of
this Court to ensure that there is finality to litigation.
26 If paragraphs 19 and 20 are perused, then the Tribunal was
fully aware of the applications filed for production of documents.
Each one of this application filed by the so-called tenants and the
landlord/owners have been dealt with. The landlord's attempt was
to show that the land was never been cultivated as it was a "Khajan
or Budit" land. It may be that such applications were filed and that
entries in the revenue records have been relied upon. Some of the
receipts have been referred to and they are as old as of 1950-51 till
1957-58 which shows that the lands, according to the Tribunal, are
uncultivated (ओस ॳकवा बुििडत). However, when these documents were
not produced before the appellate Court or in the enquiry and the
Tribunal does not wish to rely on them for the first time in revisional
jurisdiction, that is no ground to order a remand because the
landlords are not seeking any opportunity to prove their cases. It is
those persons claiming tenancy and whose applications have been
disallowed in appeal by the S.D.O. who have approached the
WP2539.12+127
Tribunal invoking its revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, what the
landlord feels or what the landlords desire is a better evidence and
that ought to be on record by itself and without anything more is no
justification for ordering a remand. In other words, the landlord did
not seek a remand.
As far as tenants are concerned, their documents are referred
in paragraphs 21 to 24 and there are voluminous documents which
were sought to be introduced and persons are claiming that they are
in possession since their forefathers. However, the Tribunal faults
such an approach of these persons by terming their attempt as
belated. If original applications were filed and the claim is that the
lands have been cultivated for 20 years which claim is later on
inflated by amendment to 40-45 years, then, there ought to be
cogent material warranting consideration by the Tribunal of the
request of remand. Why the extracts or copies which are now made
available, according to the Tribunal, to the tenants, were not
produced in the enquiry and subsequently on remand or even before
the S.D.O. has not been clarified at all. The Tribunal then holds in
WP2539.12+127
paragraph 21 that it passed an order on 14th December, 2009 that
only copies of the orders issued by the competent authority are
allowed to be produced. That was one of the documents which has
been referred and which was sought to be produced by the landlord.
However, in paragraphs 22, there is a reference made to another
application dated 14th December, 2009 and zerox copies of some
enquiry held by City Sujrvey office. The documents have not been
taken on record though they are referred to, for the reason that they
are not public documents. Then, there is reference to certain
documents which have been produced by the landlords and that is in
paragraph 23.
28 As far as the persons who had made these applications and the
revision applicants were concerned, the bunch of documents
produced by them are referred to from paragraphs 24 and then there
is a reference made to an application dated 1 st January, 2010 for
production of certified copy of City Survey number to show
possession of the revision applicants over the disputed lands. There
is extensive reference to these documents and what is extremely
WP2539.12+127
relevant is, the conclusion of the Tribunal that there are material
documents referring to agricultural lands, which is an old record
showing survey number of the lands and showing some of the
applicants as cultivators, but there is no document to show that these
are extracts of the disputed lands. If the application for production
of the documents by so-called cultivators and persons claiming to be
tenants of agricultural land, denotes that the entry therein in the
relevant columns pertaining to the land is "Barren" (ओस ॳकवा बुििडत),
then, the tribunal rightly discarded them. They are also discarded
because the lands were described by survey numbers and not by
block numbers. There are survey numbers and it is difficult to verify
and hold which survey number merged in which block number.
Survey numbers and entries recording the names of some persons as
tenants are also produced. It may be mentioned, according to the
Tribunal, the oral evidence led by parties before the Enquiry Officer
was vague. It is not claimed that the claim of tenancy is not on the
footing that the persons allegedly cultivating the lands were at the
relevant time the tenants of original landlord Kantilal or Dayalal
Acharya. If the present landlord purchased the property from
WP2539.12+127
Dayalal Acharya and if these documents appear to be produced by
Dayalal Acharya, then, the Tribunal faulted all the parties for not
producing them before the enquiry officer. However, on the spacious
plea that these documents will be helpful to decide the controversial
issue, the Tribunal states that their production needs to be allowed
and the production of documents at Vol.III is allowed. There is a
reference once again made to all such documents in paragraphs 25,
26 and 27. To my mind, allowing production of documents and with
reference to them, specifically concluding that none of these
documents could assist the parties concerned because based on
them, they are still not clear as to who was the person under whom
they cultivated the lands, then, I do not see how one could remand
the case. The final conclusion with regard to the contents of these
documents has been rendered by the Tribunal. One does not remand
a case merely because one is unsure or not certain about one's own
finding, opinion and conclusion. That is no reason for ordering a
remand. Parties who are not diligent despite litigating for
considerable length of time, do not bother to take care of the lacunas
and deficiencies in their cases, are not to be assisted by frequent
WP2539.12+127
remands. The purpose of remand essentially is to enable a Court of
law to render justice. It is not to assist those who have not been
diligent or those who for their own reasons are not producing the
relevant evidence despite several opportunities. The defects in a
case have to be removed in a timely manner. If the defect remains
despite it being brought to the party's notice, and is pointed out but
nothing has been done in relation thereto, then, it is not the business
of higher Courts to go on remanding cases to enable the parties to
improve upon their original version or introduce fresh or new case
for the first time. This is precisely what has happened when
voluminous documents were referred to during the course of remand
before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal. A prolonged
argument leading to delivering a lengthy judgment in which the rival
versions have been considered and reasons are assigned for
disbelieving and discarding one version, then the conclusion therein
ordinarily ought to be either a party succeeds or does not. Then
there need to be a remand or a fresh round. In the peculiar facts
and circumstances of this case, what I have noticed is that,
repeatedly the Tribunal holds that the tenants did not produce
WP2539.12+127
documents before the enquiry officer to prove their lawful right.
Now, when oral evidence is over, they have produced bunch of
documents such as old records and entries and showing their
cultivation but in some of the records produced by the landlord, their
names are not appearing. Therefore, for verification with regard to
the correctness of the same, re-enquiry is essential. At the same
time, it is difficult to co-relate this finding with the other in the
same paragraph that in the cases before the authorities and equally
the Tribunal, what is material is the factum of possession on tiller's
day. If the factum of possession on tiller's day by all the persons who
are claiming to be agriculturists has not been proved by valid
evidence adduced before the Tenancy Court, then, the remand can
be justified only if the Tribunal concludes that the documents
produced would evidence possession and on the tiller's day. That is
not the conclusion rendered anywhere and in the persuasive
arguments advanced, Mr.Jha was unable to point out any such
conclusion.
29 Therefore, if the case law that has been referred extensively in
WP2539.12+127
paragraphs 27 and 28 leads the Tribunal to conclude that there is no
evidence for declaring the revision applicants as tenants, the
dismissal of their cases by the S.D.O. by allowing the appeals of
landlords was justified, then, paragraphs 29 and 30 are not
conclusions in law justifying a remand. This is not the purpose for
which one orders a remand. On some spacious and general grounds
remand of cases has to be discarded.
30 If any reference is need to these salutary principles, one can
refer with advantage a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of P. Purushottam Reddy and anr. v/s. M/s.Pratap Steels
Ltd., reported in A.I.R. 2002 SC 771, where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court explained the scope of Order XLI Rule 23 and Rules 23, 23-A
and 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing for remand. The
power of remand is inherent in the power to decide an appeal as per
the Civil Procedure Code. If the power of remand is inherent in the
appellate Court and one assumes that the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal possesses that power, then, some assistance can be derived
of the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-
WP2539.12+127
"10. The next question to be examined is the legality and
propriety of the order of remand made by the High Court.
Prior to the insertion of Rule 23A in Order 41 of the Code
of Civil procedure by CPC Amendment Act, 1976, there
were only two provisions contemplating remand by a
Court of appeal in Order 41 of CPC. Rule 23 applies when
the trial Court disposes of the entire suit by recording its
findings on a preliminary issue without deciding other
issues and the finding on preliminary issues is reversed in
appeal. Rule 25 applies when the appellate Court notices
an omission on the part of the Trial Court to frame or try
any issue or to determine any question of fact which in the
opinion of the appellate Court was essential to the right
decision of the suit upon the merits. However, the remand
contemplated by Rule 25 is a limited remand inasmuch as
the subordinate Court can try only such issues as are
referred to it for trial and having done so, the evidence
recorded, together with findings and reasons therefor of
the trial Court, are required to be returned to the appellate
Court. However, still it was a settled position of law
before 1976 Amendment that the Court, in an appropriate
case could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section
151 of the CPC to order a remand if such a remand was
considered pre-eminently necessary ex debito justitiae,
though not covered by any specific provision of Order 41
of the CPC. In cases where additional evidence is required
to be taken in the event at any one of the clauses of sub-
rule (1) of Rule 27 being attracted, such additional
evidence, oral or documentary, is allowed to be produced
either before the appellate Court itself or by directing any
Court subordinate to the appellate Court to receive such
evidence and sent it to the appellate Court. In 1976, Rule
23A has been inserted in Order 41 which provides for a
remand by an appellate Court hearing an appeal against a
decree if (i) the trial Court disposed of the case otherwise
than on a preliminary point, and (ii) the decree is reversed
in appeal and a retrial is considered necessary. On twin
conditions being satisfied, the appellate Court can exercise
WP2539.12+127
the same power of remand under Rule 23A as it is under
Rule 23. After the amendment all the cases of wholesale
remand are covered by Rule 23 and 23A. In view of the
express provisions of these rules, the High Court cannot
have recourse to its inherent powers to make a remand
because, as held in Mahendra v. Sushila (AIR 1965 SC
365, at p.399), it is well settled that inherent powers can
be availed of ex debito justitiae only in the absence of
express provisions in the Code. It is only in exceptional
cases where the Court may now exercise the power of
remand dehors the Rules 23 and 23A. To wit, the superior
Court, if it finds that the judgment under appeal has not
disposed of the case satisfactorily in the manner required
by Order 20, Rule 3 or Order 11, Rule 31 of the CPC and
hence it is no judgment in the eye of law it may set aside
the same and send the matter back for re-writing the
judgment so as to protect valuable rights of the parties.
An appellate Court should be circumspect in ordering a
remand when the case is not covered either by Rule 23 or
Rule 23A or Rule 25 of the CPC. An unwarranted order of
remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life
and, therefore, must be avoided."
What the Supreme Court cautious all of us, is an unwarranted order
of remand as it gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and,
therefore, it must be avoided. The Supreme Court has also clarified
that, power of remand is to be exercised when the case is decided
only on preliminary issue and the finding on which is reversed by the
Appellate Court, then, the matter must go back to the original
authority or Court for a decision on other issues and dealing with the
WP2539.12+127
merits. The other power of remand is when the case is not decided
only on preliminary issues but there is a decision rendered on all
points and issues. If such a decision, covering all points and issues,
requires interference by the appellate authority but the appellate
authority finds that in the interest of justice the remand is necessary,
then, that is a power which is traced to Order 41 Rule 23-A of Code
of Civil Procedure Code. If these principles are borne in mind as
they are guiding all of us equally in exercise of revisional powers,
then one fails to understand the order of a remand in this case and it
is difficult to uphold it.
31 A faint attempt made by Shri Jha to show that this writ
petition should not be entertained because the petitioners in this
case have consented to the course adopted by the Tribunal, need not
detain me. The Tribunal's order must be read as a whole. The
Tribunal's order is completely in favour of the present petitioners. If
it is so and the Tribunal then remands the case, then, the petitioners
are justified in complaining about the course adopted and urging
that the same is vitiated by a error of law apparent on the face of the
WP2539.12+127
record or perversity. Paragraph 31 of the impugned order refers to
the consent for the course suggested by the revisional authority,
namely, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The advocates may have
stated that if at all a remand is being directed and that is what the
Tribunal intended, then, the matter must go to the Special Tahsildar
and need not remain pending in the office of the Regular Tahsildar
solely exercising his powers over the entire area because he may be
flooded with other enquiries. Agreement to such a course cannot be
termed as a waiver of the right to challenge the ultimate conclusion
of the Tribunal ordering a remand. In this case, there is nothing in
paragraph 31 which would indicate that the petitioners consented to
a remand. In fact, they are aggrieved by the course adopted by the
Tribunal. The Tribunal having dismissed the revision applications
which are filed by the contesting respondents to these petitions by
disbelieving their versions ought not to have remanded their cases is
the grievance of the petitioners. By the observations in other
paragraphs of the Tribunal's order referred by me herein above and
finding that there is enough material to hold that the remand was
unnecessary and uncalled for, then, I do not propose to dismiss these
WP2539.12+127
writ petitions on the ground that the course suggested by the
Tribunal was consented by the present petitioners.
32 The judgments that have been relied upon by Shri Jha on this
point are clearly distinguishable on facts. The Supreme Court, in the
cases which are brought to my notice by Shri Jha, did not entertain
the writ petition because it was a consent decree. The consent
decree having been passed in the case of Suvaran Rajaram
Bandekar & ors. v/s Narayan R. Bandekar, reported in (1996) 10
SCC 255, the Court refused to interfere on the ground that the
consent decree can be modified equally by consent of parties and not
otherwise.
33 In the second case (S.P. Borkar & ors. v/s NTC (S.M.) Ltd. &
ors., reported in (2001) 10 SCC 232), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
upheld the order of this Court, because this Court concluded that the
Industrial Court's direction is based on consent given by parties.
That was the course suggested by parties of giving alternate relief
instead of reinstatement. That alternate relief having been
WP2539.12+127
consented to, could not then be questioned.
34 The powers of Lok Adalat under the Legal Services Authorities
Act, 1987, was the issue in the case of P.T. Thomas v/s Thomas Job,
reported in (2005) 6 SCC 478. His Lordship Dr. AR. Laxkshmanan,
as His Lordship then was, while outlining the scope of powers
conferred in the Lok Adalat concluded that the language of Civil
Procedure Code in this behalf is absolute. No appeal lies from an
order or decree which is passed by consent of parties. That mandate
has been read into the order of the Lok Adalat as well. Beyond this,
the judgment is of no assistance in this case.
35 Equally, in the other judgment in the case of S. Thilagavathy
v/s State of Tamil Nadu & ors., reported in (2011) 6 SCC 365, the
Supreme Court refused to interfere because the party had agreed to
join at the transferred place and given up her challenge against the
transfer order before the Single Judge. The appeal against the
consent order was not maintainable and dismissed by the Division
Bench of the High Court. That order was upheld on this factual
WP2539.12+127
foundation.
36 In these circumstances, none of the judgments can be assisting
Shri Jha in this case.
37 In the view that I have taken, it is not necessary to make any
detailed reference to the ambit and scope of the powers conferred by
Section 76 of the B.T. & A.L. Act, 1948. The powers that the law
confers are intended to set right errors of law committed by Courts
of justice. The Tribunal must interfere in cases where it finds that
orders of the authorities below it are perverse or vitiated by errors of
law apparent on the face of the record. When material evidence or
documents are ignored or their contents brushed aside, when parties
had no proper or enough opportunity to prove their cases, when
parties proceeded under disability, then and in all such cases a
revisional interference is warranted and is upheld. Beyond that, a
re-appreciation or reappraisal of evidence in revisional proceedings
or unnecessary directions of remand, cannot be justified and can
well be termed as the Tribunal exceeding the scope of its authority.
WP2539.12+127
For this proposition, really no judgment is required. All that is
necessary is to remind the Tribunal of such rulings in which it is
held that if the case suffers from paucity of evidence as held by the
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Girja Kumar (1) & ors.
v/s Himachal Pradesh and anr., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 93,
then, there is no question of remand or re-examination as that would
mean giving an opportunity to cure any lacuna in the evidence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned the judicial authorities and
Courts that those who have not led the evidence before the Trial
Court, must suffer for it. In the case in hand, Remand was not a
course which could have been adopted in the given facts and
circumstances, then, the Tribunal's order cannot be sustained.
38 As a result of the above discussion, writ petitions succeed.
Rule is made absolute in the following terms.
39 The Tribunal's orders to the extent it directs the remand of the
cases back to the Tenancy authorities, is quashed and set aside. The
revision applications filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
WP2539.12+127
will stand dismissed in their entirety and without any direction or
order of remand.
40 In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
41 At this stage, Mr.Jha, the learned advocate appearing for the
respondents, prays that this order be stayed. This request is opposed
by Mr. Samdani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners,
by pointing out that the Revisions are dismissed and that dismissal is
upheld by quashing and setting aside the direction of remand and
such an order can never be stayed.
42 In these cases, the revision applications were filed by the
contesting respondents. They have not succeeded before the
Tribunal as would be evident by what has been held by me
hereinabove. Despite that the Tribunal directed a remand and which
order and direction has been faulted by me and quashed and set
aside. Therefore, the contesting respondents' revision applications
stand dismissed in their entirety. I do not understand how such an
WP2539.12+127
order can be stayed. Request for stay refused.
43 To be fair to Shri Jha, his request was based on the fact that
the contesting respondents are claiming to be in physical possession
and that on the strength of this order, proceedings may be initiated
to dispossess them. I find absolutely no material which would
evidence physical possession of the respondents before me and as
claimed. In such circumstances, there is no basis for the
apprehension expressed by Shri Jha.
(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
WP2539.12+127
