Bombay High Court
Narayan S/O Tukaram Lanjewar And ... vs Baliram S/O Shivram Bendre on 23 September, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
LPA 508-10 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 508/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3486/1999 (D)
1. Narayan s/o Tukaram Lanjewar. (DELETED)
2. Bandu @ Shioshankar s/o Baburao Lanjewar,
Aged about 56 years.
3. Prakash s/o Baburao Lanjewar,
Aged about 50 years.
4. Dilip s/o Baburao Lanjewar,
aged about 45 years.
5. Gajanan s/o Baburao Lanjewar,
aged about 40 years.
6. Anjanabai w/o Baburao Lanjewar. (DELETED)
7. Bebi wd/o Santosh Bhende,
aged about 50 years.
8. Maroti s/o Ramji Lanjewar.
9. Meena w/o Shrihari Pankar.
10. Laxmibai wd/o Ramji Lanjewar.
2 to 10 R/o Post Tq. and Distt. Balaji Ward, Chandrapur.
11. Sundarbai wd/o Shankar Lanjewar.
12. Manohar s/o Shankar Lanjewar.
13. Vilas s/o Shankar Lanjewar.
Nos.11 to 13 r/o and Post Dhumankheda Ward,
Tq. Bramhapuri, Distt. Chandrapur. PETITIONERS
.....VERSUS.....
Baliram s/o Shivram Bendre. (DEAD)
1(a) Harichand s/o Baliram Bendre.
1(b) Prakash s/o Baliram Bendre.
1(c) Suresh s/o Baliram Bendre.
1(d) Ishwar s/o Baliram Bendre.
1(e) Mayabai w/o Brijlal Bagmare.
R.1(a) to 1(d) all R/o Udapur,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Distt. Chandrapur.
R.1(e) R/o Shivnagar, Udapur,
Tah. Bramhapuri, Distt. Chandrapur. RESPONDENTS
LPA 508-10 2 Judgment
Shri M.V. Amale, counsel for the petitioners.
Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2022.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
The challenge raised in this letters patent appeal is to the
judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.3486 of 1999. By
the said judgment dated 28.07.2010 the writ petition preferred by the
present appellants-landlords had been dismissed and the order passed by
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 09.08.1999 allowing the revision
application preferred by the original respondent herein has been
confirmed.
2. The dispute pertains to the direction to restore possession of
Field bearing Gat No.309 admeasuring 3 Acres 24 R from Survey No.231 of
Mouza Paradgaon, Tahsil Bramhapuri, District Chandrapur. The original
respondent herein - Baliram claimed to be the tenant of the aforesaid land
and with the grievance that he was forcibly evicted from the said land by
the landlords-Narayan & Others he initiated proceedings under Section
36(1) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha
Region) Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958'). The Tahsildar by his order
dated 14.02.1993 recorded a finding that the tenant had placed on record
relevant documents including the lease-deed from the years 1974-75 to
LPA 508-10 3 Judgment
1977-78 and that in the mutation records it was duly certified that Baliram
was a tenant. Since it was found that Baliram had proved that he was a
tenant and he had been evicted without following the due process, the
Tahsildar directed restoration of his possession. The landlords being
aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred an appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer who allowed the same on 25.09.1997. It was directed
that the possession be restored to Narayan. Being aggrieved by the
aforesaid order, Baliram preferred a revision application before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 111 of the Act of 1958. The
Tribunal after considering the records affirmed the findings recorded by
the Tahsildar that Baliram was a tenant in view of the provisions of Section
6 of the Act of 1958. Baliram had been evicted by Narayan without
following the due process as contemplated by Section 36(2) of the Act of
1958. The application preferred by Baliram under Section 36(1) of the Act
of 1958 on 07.04.1978 was within the statutory period of three years as
contemplated. It was further noted that on 27.11.1993 an order of status
quo was passed by the Tribunal and therefore the Tahsildar was not
justified in passing an order on 02.12.1998 and directing restoration of
possession to Narayan pursuant to the order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer. On that basis the revision application was allowed and the order
passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 25.09.1997 was set aside.
However the finding that Baliram was a tenant was maintained. Being
LPA 508-10 4 Judgment
aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the landlords filed Writ Petition No.3486
of 1999. The learned Single Judge considered the material that was placed
before the Revenue Authorities and held that the Tribunal was justified in
directing restoration of possession to Baliram. Being aggrieved the
landlords have preferred the present letters patent appeal.
3. Shri M.V. Amale, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the lease created in favour of Baliram was not legal in view of the fact
that the land was the property of a joint family. One member of the family
could not have executed the lease-deed in favour of Baliram. Despite this
objection being raised before the Authorities the same was not considered.
It was urged that the landlords were in legal possession and there could
not have been any direction to restore possession to them. He therefore
submitted that the judgment passed by the Tribunal and thereafter
confirmed by the learned Single Judge was liable to be set aside.
4. Shri S.S. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondents
supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to him the
Tribunal confirmed various findings of facts including the aspect that
Baliram was a tenant and that he had been dispossessed without
complying with the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act of 1958. In
absence of any jurisdictional error there was no reason to interfere with the
judgment of the learned Single Judge.
LPA 508-10 5 Judgment
5. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties we find that the
Tribunal has recorded various findings of fact including the fact that
Baliram was proved to be a tenant of the said land, there was no
application preferred by the landlords under Section 36(2) of the Act of
1958 for evicting Baliram and that Baliram was entitled to be restored
possession as a tenant. These findings recorded by the Tribunal have been
upheld by the learned Single Judge. The submission that was raised that
the lease was granted only by one member of the family has been
considered by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment. It has
been held that it was for the aggrieved family member to have sought
appropriate declaration from the competent forum and the Tenancy Court
was not the proper forum to decide that aspect.
6. We find that the Tribunal and thereafter the learned Single
Judge have taken into consideration all relevant aspects. The finding of
fact as recorded that Baliram was a tenant and that he was evicted without
following the provisions of Section 36(2) of the Act of 1958 is based on
material available on record. In absence of any jurisdictional error we do
not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single
Judge. Consequently, the letters patent appeal stands dismissed with no
order as to costs.
LPA 508-10 6 Judgment
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for
continuation of the interim order dated 26.10.2010. This request is
opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.
Since the order of status quo is operating since long, it shall
continue to operate for a further period of six weeks from today and the
same shall automatically cease to operate thereafter.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
Signed By: Digitally signed
byROHIT DATTATRAYA
APTE
Signing Date:26.09.2022 16:56
