[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Pandharinath Ganpat Ghadage (Deceased ... vs Shivaji Savala Jagadale And Ors. on 1 December, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:52199
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3532 OF 2018
Pandharinath Ganpat Ghadage (since deceased
through legal heirs) Namdev Pandharinath
Ghadage and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Shivaji Savala Jagadale and Ors. .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3533 OF 2018
Pandharinath Ganpat Ghadage (since deceased
through legal heirs) Namdev Pandharinath
Ghadage and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
Shivaji Savala Jagadale and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Graham Francis i/by Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, Advocate for
Petitioners.
Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Ms. Ekta Dalvi and Mr. Bhavya Shah,
Advocates i/by JJ Shah for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for State in WP No. 3532/2018
Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, AGP for State in WP 3533/2018
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : DECEMBER 01, 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Francis, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr.
Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.
2. Writ Petition No.3532 of 2018 impugns judgment dated
02.12.2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Pune
Division, Pune in Revision Application No.156/B/2001/NS filed by
Petitioners under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'MTAL Act') whereby Revision
1 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Application was dismissed.
3. Writ Petition No.3533 of 2018 impugns the same common
judgment dated 02.12.2017 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal Pune Division, Pune in Revision Application
No.TNC/REV/200/2004/NS filed by Respondent No.1 under Section
76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for
short 'MTAL Act') whereby Revision Application was allowed. Both the
Writ Petitions are disposed of by this common order.
4. Since the year 1954, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were original
landlords of the suit lands. It is Petitioners' case that original Petitioner
Pandharinath was tenant on Tiller's day and cultivated the suit lands
i.e. S.No.13/1 alongwith S.No.13/7 i.e. Gat No.154 and S.No.13/32
i.e. Gat No.135 admeasuring 78R and 15R respectively i.e. 93R in
total, situated at village - Shirataki, Taluka - Man (herein referred to
as 'suit lands'), till his demise dated 22.04.2006 and thereafter his
legal heirs continued in possession of the suit lands.
4.1. It is Petitioner's case that vide Mutation Entry No.1101 dated
16.11.1956 certified on 23.04.1957, original Petitioner's name i.e.
Pandharinath was recorded as 'deemed purchaser' of the suit lands.
However, contrary to this claim the Revenue Record of the said lands
did not record name of Pandharinath, infact name of the other tenant
one Vishnu Raoji Jagdale was recorded therein.
2 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
4.2. According to Petitioner in the year 1964, name of
Pandharinath was mistakenly deleted while deleting name of the other
tenant i.e. Vishnu Raoji Jagdale as he refused the right to purchase the
land. It is Petitioners' case that Defendant No.2 in collusion with
village Talathi deleted the name of Pandharinath from the record of
right.
4.3. On 06.12.1974, Respondent Nos.2 and 3, landlords of the
suit lands executed Agreement for Sale of suit lands in favour of
Respondent No.1 - Shivaji Savala Jagdale. On 22.02.1975, Respondent
No.1 was put in possession of the suit lands in pursuance to Possession
Receipt. However due to failure of Respondent No.2 to execute the
Sale Deed in favour of Respondent No.1, Respondent No.1 filed
Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1980, seeking specific performance of the
Agreement for Sale.
4.4. It is Petitioners' case that even though Pandharinath was
impleaded as Defendant No.2 in the said Suit, Respondent No.2 i.e.
one of the landlord, falsely obtained his signature on the Written
Statement in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1980 which did not state that
Pandharinath was the original tenant of Respondent No.2. On
06.02.1980, Sale Deed was executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of
Pandharinath' son i.e. Respondent No.4 - Manikrao Pandharinath
3 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Ghadage.
4.5. By judgment / order dated 27.06.1990 in Regular Civil Suit
No.14 of 1980 passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division Satara, Dahiwadi
Suit was decreed in favour of Respondent No.1 wherein he was
granted specific performance and it was held that Respondent No.1
was put in possession on 22.02.1975 and Respondent No.4 - Manikrao
Pandharinath Ghadage was not a bonafide purchaser for value without
notice. Hence the Sale Deed dated 06.02.1980 being fraudulent was
set aside.
4.6. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.4 - Manikrao Pandharinath
Ghadage challenged the decree in Regular Civil Appeal No.321 of
1990. By order dated 16.10.1999 Additional District Judge, Satara
dismissed Regular Civil Appeal No.321 of 1990 and confirmed the
decree of specific performance. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.4 -
Manikrao Pandharinath Ghadage challenged the order dated
16.10.1999 in Second Appeal No.42 of 2000 before this Court. By
order dated 23.08.2001, this Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
4.7. In the interregnum, on 12.03.1991, 32G proceedings were
initiated by original Petitioner - Pandharinath. By order dated
01.11.1996, the original Petitioner was declared as deemed purchaser
and purchase price was fixed under Section 32G of the MTAL Act with
respect to suit lands. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 challenged the
4 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
32G order by filing Tenancy Appeal No.23 of 1997 before the Sub-
Divisional Officer. By order dated 29.08.2001, Sub-Divisional Officer
allowed the Tenancy Appeal No.23 of 1997 and thereby set aside the
order dated 01.11.1996 passed under Section 32G proceedings. In the
meanwhile, being aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2001, original
Petitioner - Pandharinath filed Revision Application
No.156/B/2001/NS before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
4.8. Original Petitioner - Pandharinath filed also simultaneously
Application under Section 84C for declaration of Agreement for Sale
dated 06.12.1974 executed by Respondent No.2 in favour of
Respondent No.1 as illegal. By order dated 12.10.2000, Tahsildar
allowed the 84C Application and declared the Agreement for Sale
dated 06.12.1974 as illegal. Being aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed
Tenancy Appeal No.29 of 2000 before the Sub-Divisional Officer. By
order dated 30.10.2004, Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed Tenancy
Appeal No.29 of 2000. Hence, being aggrieved by order dated
30.10.2004, Respondent No.1 filed Revision Application
No.TNC/REV/200/2004
4.9. In the meanwhile, original Petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit
No.49 of 2002 before Civil Judge Junior Division, Dahiwadi against
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for perpetual injunction. By judgment dated
23.12.2011, Civil Judge Junior Division, Dahiwadi dismissed Regular
5 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Civil Suit No.49 of 2002. Being aggrieved, by judgment / decree dated
23.12.2011, original Petitioner filed Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of
2012. By order dated 12.07.2019, District Judge, Satara dismissed
Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2012.
4.10. However, by common judgment / order dated 02.12.2017,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed Revision Application
No.156/B/2001/NS filed by original Petitioner and allowed Revision
Application No.TNC/REV/200/2004 filed by Respondent No.1.
4.11. Hence, Writ Petition No.3532 of 2018 impugns order dated
02.12.2017 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision
Application No.156/B/2001/NS. Writ Petition No.3533 of 2018
impugns the same common order dated 02.12.2017 passed by
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No.
TNC/REV/200/2004.
5. Mr. Francis, learned Advocate for Petitioners would submit
that the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has misconstrued the erroneous
deletion of original Petitioner - Pandharinath's name by Mutation
Entry No. 1324 while passing the order dated 20.08.2001 and that the
said deletion was itself incorrect and mechanical. He would submit
that Pandharinath's tenancy stood established by operation of law on
Tiller's Day and was further affirmed by the 32G order and that his
name had duly been recorded by Mutation Entry No. 1101 dated
6 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
16.11.1956. He would submit that Agricultural Land Tribunal and
Tahsildar after considering the entire evidence categorically held that
original Petitioner - Pandharinath was the tenant entitled to purchase
the suit land yet the Sub-Divisional Officer in a single paragraph
concluded otherwise solely on the basis of deletion of the Mutation
Entry. He would submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not
examine the legality or veracity of Mutation Entry No.1324 and thus
upset the well-reasoned findings of the Agricultural Land Tribunal on
the unverified and erroneous entry.
6. He would submit that this Court in the case of Laxman Hari
Tambe since deceased by heirs Sushila Laxman Tambe and Ors. Vs.
Dattu Sonu Pawar since deceased by his heirs Hindurao Dattu Pawar
and Ors.1 held that deletion of a tenant's name is not sufficient for the
landlord to claim personal cultivation and this principle squarely
applies to the present case thereby rendering the Sub-Divisional
Officer's reliance on Mutation Entry No. 1324 untenable. He would
submit that in Respondent No.1's Regular Civil Suit No. 14 of 1980 for
specific performance, the issue of tenancy was never raised or
adjudicated and that the Suit was decreed without referring to vital
question of tenancy to the competent Tenancy Court. He would submit
that even in Appeal when original Petitioner - Pandharinath
specifically raised the issue it was mandatory for the District Court to
1 2006 (6) Mh LJ 289
7 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
frame an additional issue under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 but Court failed to do so and did not consider the
Petitioners' possession of the suit lands.
7. He would submit that Section 85 of the MTAL Act bars the
jurisdiction of Civil Court to settle, decide or deal with any question,
which is to be decided by the Mamalatdar, Tribunal, Manager,
Collector or Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Appeal or Revision or by
the State Government in exercise of their power or control. Hence he
would submit that both the Civil Courts in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of
1980 and Regular Civil Suit No.49 of 2002 committed a serious
jurisdictional error by deciding possession despite the tenancy claim.
He would submit that the Supreme Court in the case of Gundaji
Satwaji Shinde Vs. Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi2 held that when an issue
arises in Civil Suit which must be decided by the Tenancy Authority the
jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted and the issue must be referred to
the Competent Court / Authority by the Civil Court. He would submit
that Civil Court in the present case has acted contrary to this mandate
thereby rendering these findings without jurisdiction.
8. He would submit that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
committed a grave error by placing reliance on the findings of the Civil
Courts despite those findings being rendered without jurisdiction. He
has referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court (Coram: A.M.
2 AIR 1979 SC 653
8 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Khanwilkar, J.) in the case of Vasudeo Ramchandra Kale and Ors.Vs.
Vijay Bhikaji Raut and Ors.3 wherein the Court has clarified that once a
tenant is declared a deemed tenant under the MTAL Act, he requires
no further proof and the burden shifts on the landlord. He would
submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal proceeded as if Petitioners were required to re-establish their
tenancy contrary to settled law. He has further referred to and relied
upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Babu Parasu
Kaikadi (Dead) by Lrs.Vs. Babu (Dead) through Lrs.4 to contend that
possession under Section 29 of MTAL Act includes the "right of
possession" and that if the landlord takes physical possession in
violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed for termination and
surrender of tenancy, it would be illegal and legal right continues to
vest in the tenant which protects the tenant which is clearly ignored by
both Authorities.
9. He would submit that the MTAL Act confers inalienable
rights upon tenants on Tiller's Day which cannot be defeated by an
erroneous deletion of Mutation Entry or by Civil Court findings
rendered without jurisdiction. He would submit that the Sub-Divisional
Officer relied mechanically on Mutation Entry No. 1324 and that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further erred by relying on the Civil
Court orders passed without jurisdiction. He would submit that the
3 2001 (3) Mh LJ 90
4 (2004) 1 SCC 681
9 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
impugned order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is therefore
perverse illegal and contrary to binding precedent and both the Sub-
Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have disregarded
statutory mandate and committed jurisdictional error. He would
submit that in these circumstances the impugned order of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside
and that the well-reasoned findings of the Agricultural Land Tribunal
in 32G proceedings ought to be restored.
10. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 would
submit that Petitioners challenge to concurrent findings recorded by
the Sub-Divisional Officer Man, by the Order dated 29.08.2001 in
Tenancy Appeal No.23 of 1997 and by the learned Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Pune by the Order dated 02.12.2017 in Revision
Application No.165 of 2001 is untenable. He would submit that both
Authorities have rightly held that original - Petitioner - Pandharinath
failed to establish that he was a tenant in lawful possession of the
subject lands bearing Survey Nos. 13/1 and 13/7 corresponding to Gat
No.154 admeasuring 78R and Survey No. 13/32 Gat No.135
admeasuring 15R situated at Village Shirataki, Taluka Man on Tiller's
Day. He would submit that Writ Petitions are only an attempt to re-
open factual findings which are based on proper appreciation of the
record.
10 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
11. He would submit that original Petitioner - Pandharinath
claimed before the Agricultural Land Tribunal, Dahiwadi that he was
cultivating the subject lands as tenant on Tiller's Day and filed
Application dated 09.08.1996 under Section 32G of the MTAL Act. He
would submit that though the Agricultural Land Tribunal by Order
dated 01.11.1996 fixed the purchase price, however original
Petitioner - Pandharinath could never establish continuous tenancy or
possession from the period 1955 to 1956. He would submit that
Mutation Entry No.1101 certified on 23.04.1957 only recorded that
Petitioner was an ordinary tenant for one isolated year and there was
no proof of tenancy on 01.04.1957 or thereafter. He would submit that
from the Revenue Records for the period 1958 to 1959 onwards the
landlord was consistently shown in personal cultivation which falsifies
Petitioners' claim of tenancy.
12. He would submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy
Appeal No.23 of 1997 correctly held that original Petitioner -
Pandharinath's name did not appear in the Revenue Record from the
period 1955 to 1956 and he did not challenge deletion of his name by
Mutation Entry No.1324. He would submit that the Sub-Divisional
Officer rightly held that merely because original Petitioner -
Pandharinath's name appears for one year vide Mutation Entry No.
11 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
1101 it is not a conclusive proof of tenancy for the year 1956 to 1957
or for any subsequent period till the filing of the Application under
Section 32G in the year 1996. He would submit that original Petitioner
- Pandharinath never challenged Mutation Entry No.1316 certified on
29.07.1964 which recorded that tenant Vishnu Raoji Jagdale had
refused to purchase the land and that possession was handed back to
the landlords.
13. He would submit that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Pune while dismissing Revision Application No.165 of 2001 rightly
affirmed the reasoning of the Sub-Divisional Officer. He would submit
that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal correctly held that Mutation
Entry No. 1101 shows tenancy only for the year 1955 to 1956 and not
beyond and that there is no evidence of possession or cultivation by
original Petitioner - Pandharinath on Tiller's Day. He would submit
that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has further held that the
Revenue Record demonstrates continued possession and cultivation by
the landlord from the year 1958 to 1959 onwards and that original
Petitioner - Pandharinath never challenged Mutation Entry No. 1316 or
Mutation Entry No.1324 and he therefore cannot rely on his
abandoned rights, solely to claim tenancy.
14. He would submit that the history of civil litigation between
the parties also conclusively shows that original Petitioner -
12 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Pandharinath was never in possession of the subject lands. He would
submit that the landlord - Respondent No.2 executed an Agreement for
Sale dated 06.12.1974 in favour of Respondent No.1 and delivered
possession on 22.02.1975 under a possession receipt. He would submit
that original Petitioner - Pandharinath was joined as Defendant No.2 in
Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 1980 yet he did not raise any plea of
tenancy or cultivation on Tiller's Day and instead joined the landlord in
asserting that the lands had been sold to his son under the Sale Deed
dated 06.02.1980. He would submit that the Civil Court by judgment
dated 27.06.1990 decreed the Suit and held that Respondent No.1 was
in possession since the year 1975 and was entitled to specific
performance and that these findings were affirmed in First Appeal and
Second Appeal proceedings and were never challenged by Petitioner.
He would submit that in Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of 2002 filed by
original Petitioner - Pandharinath for injunction and possession both
the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court held that original
Petitioner - Pandharinath was not in possession and dismissed his
claims which was not challenged further by original Petitioner -
Pandharinath. Hence the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 49 of
2002 has become absolute and final.
15. He would submit that original Petitioner - Pandharinath
filed Application under Section 84C alleging that Agreement for Sale
dated 06.12.1974 was illegal but although the Tahsildar initially
13 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
allowed the Application the same was reversed by the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision No.200 of 2004 by Order dated
02.12.2017. He would submit that original Petitioner - Pandharinath's
attempt to invoke tenancy rights only after losing the Civil proceedings
is not bona fide and that Application under Section 32G filed in the
year 1996 is inherently not maintainable as Petitioner was neither a
tenant nor in possession. He would submit that in these circumstances
the concurrent orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal do not call for interference and that both the Writ
Petitions deserve to be dismissed.
16. I have heard, Mr. Francis, learned Advocate for Petitioners
and Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and with their
able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made by
both the Advocates at the bar has received due consideration of the
Court.
17. It is seen that the challenge in these Petitions is to concurrent
findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, wherein it is held that original Petitioner -
Pandharinath failed to establish tenancy on the Tiller's Day and
consequently failed to prove any entitlement under Section 32G of the
MTAL Act.
18. At the outset, it is seen that primary issue which arises for
14 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
determination is whether original Petitioner - Pandharinath was a
lawful tenant on 01.04.1957 and whether he continued to remain in
possession and cultivation so as to attract the provisions of Section 32
and 32G which he implied in the year 1996.. The burden to establish
tenancy, particularly tenancy subsisting on Tiller's Day i.e. 01.04.1957,
indisputably rests upon the person asserting such status. Between 1956
and 1996 a series of incidents occurred qua the suit lands. In 1964
there was a mutation entry passed which deleted Pandharinath's name,
in 1975 suit lands were sold and possession was handed over.
19. It is seen that original Petitioner - Pandharinath relies
entirely on Mutation Entry No.1101 dated 16.11.1956 recording the
name of original Petitioner - Pandharinath as tenant in support of his
case that he was a protected tenant on Tiller's day i.e. 01.04.1957. The
said entry pertains only to the agricultural year 1955 to 1956. The
entry does not record tenancy on 01.04.1957, nor does it reflect
possession or cultivation of Pandharinath beyond that single year. This
mutation entry therefore prima facie does not establish Pandharinath's
tenancy on the Tiller's Day.
20. The Revenue Record from the period 1958 to 1959 onwards
however is to the contrary and it consistently reflects the names of the
landlord as persons in possession and cultivation of the suit lands.
Every Record of Rights entry after the year 1956 reflects that the
15 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
landlord is cultivating the suit lands personally. No entry exists after
the year 1956 which records the original Petitioners name as tenant or
cultivator. These entries have continued for several decades thereafter
without any challenge. Such long, uncontested continuity of Mutation
entries support the case of the landlord.
21. Mutation Entry No.1316 (recording the change of possession
in favour of Respondents) and Mutation Entry No.1324 (recording
deletion of the name of Pandharinath) were never questioned by the
original Petitioner - Pandharinath when they were made or
immediately thereafter. They were not challenged before any Revenue
Authority for more than thirty years Pandharinath's first objection
surfaced only in the year 1996, long after the entries had attained
finality. This belated challenge undermines the credibility of the
tenancy claim of Pandharinath.
22. The plea that the deletion of mutation entry in 1996 was
fraudulent and procured in collusion with the Talathi is raised without
any contemporaneous complaint, grievance or proceeding. No material
has been produced to substantiate the allegation of fraud. Allegation of
fraud when raised decades after the mutation entries being in
subsistence without any supporting record, cannot dislodge long-
standing revenue entries.
23. In proceedings under Section 32G initiated in 1996 the
16 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Agricultural Lands Tribunal has relied solely on Mutation Entry
No.1101 and proceeded to hold that original Petitioner - Pandharinath
was a tenant. It is seen that the Tribunal clearly failed to examine the
entire Revenue Record after the year 1956 which prima facie reflected
the possession and name of the landlord only. It is seen that the
Tribunal failed to consider the long, unexplained silence of original
Petitioner - Pandharinath and his failure to challenge the relevant
entry. The order of the Agricultural Land Tribunal was therefore rightly
set aside in Appeal in my opinion.
24. The Sub-Divisional Officer considered the entire record,
including all undisputed revenue entries from the year 1958 to 1959
onwards and held that original Petitioner - Pandharinath had not
established tenancy on the Tiller's Day. The Sub-Divisional Officer also
took note of the fact that original Petitioner - Pandharinath raised the
claim of tenancy only after adverse findings were recorded in the Civil
Court proceedings against him. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that
the 32G proceedings were initiated by suppressing material facts and
that claim of tenancy being subsisting was not demonstrated.
25. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision affirmed
these findings. It is seen that the Tribunal independently examined the
material and concluded that Mutation Entry No.1101 was insufficient
to establish Pandharinath's tenancy on Tiller's day. The Tribunal found
17 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
that the Revenue Record for more than three decades was wholly
inconsistent with the tenancy claim and that the Agricultural Land
Tribunal committed an error in ignoring the relevant material record.
Hence, no perversity has been demonstrated in these concurrent
findings. Tenancy claim cannot be merely established on the basis of
one long standing mutation entry for one year only. When there is no
iota of evidence to establish such a claim, Petitioner's case fails.
26. It is seen that learned Advocate for Petitioners relied upon
the proposition that once tenancy existed, loss of possession thereafter
does not extinguish statutory rights, particularly the right of a deemed
purchaser. This principle is well-settled, but it applies only when
tenancy on Tiller's Day is already established and perfected. In the
present case, Petitioners have failed to establish tenancy on the
relevant date neither they have perfected their title. Consequently, the
doctrine of deemed purchase therefore does not arise.
27. Petitioners further submit that findings of Civil Courts cannot
bind the Tenancy Authority. It is true that Civil Courts cannot
adjudicate tenancy issues. However, the Civil Court judgments have
been relied upon only for the limited purpose of recording the factual
position regarding possession of the suit land from the year 1975
onwards. The Civil Courts have found that Respondent No.1 was
placed in possession on 22.02.1975. These findings were affirmed in
18 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
First Appeal and Second Appeal. It is further seen that Petitioners
never asserted tenancy in those proceedings despite being a party to
the suit proceedings and their conduct of supporting the landlord's sale
and joining in the civil litigation is therefore wholly inconsistent to
their claim of subsistence of tenancy.
28. The Civil Court findings are not used to decide tenancy. They
are used to assess the credibility of the claim and the chain of
possession. Hence, Petitioners' failure to assert tenancy in earlier
proceedings, coupled with long silence for decades supports the
conclusion that the claim was raised belatedly and only after adverse
Civil Court findings.
29. Original - Petitioner - Pandharinath approached the Tenancy
Authorities for the first time in the year 1996. This is nearly three
decades after the alleged tenancy and more than twenty years after the
Civil Court litigation commenced. Such delay and absence of timely
assertion goes to the root of the claim and renders his actions as
unreliable.
30. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and above
observations and findings , I am of the opinion that (i) Pandharinath's
tenancy on Tiller's Day i.e. 01.04.1957 has not been established, (ii)
the Revenue Record consistently supports the claim of the landlord,
(iii) crucial Mutation Entry of 1964 was never challenged by
19 of 20
WP.3532.2018+.doc
Pandharinath and it attained finality, (iv) the 32G order was passed
without proper examination of the entire record pertaining to the suit
land and (v) the concurrent findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer and
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal are based on evidence and correct legal
principles. Hence, both the Writ Petitions fail.
31. The common order and judgment dated 02.12.2017 passed
by learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application
No.156/B/2001/NS and Revision Application No.
TNC/REV/200/2004/NS is upheld and confirmed.
32. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
33. Mr. Francis, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner would persuade the Court to stay the present order to test its
validity and legality in the Superior Court considering the gross facts in
the present case which are stated hereinabove.
34. His request for stay is opposed by Ms. Dalvi, learned
Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondents. However, considering
the observations and findings given in the above order, I am not
inclined to accept the request made by Mr. Francis. Hence, his request
is rejected.
35. If there is any ad-interim order, the same shall stand vacated.
Ajay [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
20 of 20
