[Cites 23, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Babasaheb Janardhan Ingole vs Asaram Rajaram Ingole And Ors on 17 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:36148
1 wp 4394-2011.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4394 OF 2011
Ganpat s/o Anna Ingole
Age : 61 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner
(Orig. Def. No. 2)
Versus
1. Asaram Rajaram Ingole
Age about 59 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. .. Respondents
(Orig. Pltff Nos. 1 to 3)
2. Masu Rajaram Ingole
Age about 55 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed.
3. Navnath Rajaram Ingole
Age about 50 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed.
4. Additional Tahsildar,
Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.
5. Deputy Collector,
Land Reforms Beed.
6. Babasaheb Rajaram Ingole
Age about 57 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. .. Respondents
1 of 18
2 wp 4394-2011.odt
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5294 OF 2011
Babasaheb s/o Janaradhan Ingole
Age : 60 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner
(Orig. Def. No. 1)
Versus
1. Asaram Rajaram Ingole
Age about 59 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. .. Respondents
(Orig. Pltff Nos. 1 to 3)
2. Masu Rajaram Ingole
Age about 55 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed.
3. Navnath Rajaram Ingole
Age about 50 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed.
4. Ganpat s/o Anna Ingole
Age : 61 years, Occu. : Agri.,
R/o. : Aher Dhanora, Tq. Beed,
Dist. Beed. Respondent No. 4
(Orig. Def. No. 2)
.. Respondents
Mr. Milind K. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Smt. Chaitali Choudhary-Kutti, AGP for Respondents/State.
Mr. G. K. (Naik) Thigle, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
2 of 18
3 wp 4394-2011.odt
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
Date on which reserved for order : 15th October, 2025.
Date on which order pronounced : 17th December, 2025.
FINAL ORDER :-
1. Both these petitions are arising out of common judgment
and order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal. The parties to the petition are the same. Writ Petition
No. 4394/2011 is by original defendant No. 2 whereas, Writ
Petition No. 5294/2011 is by original defendant No. 1 in a suit
filed by the present respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Respondent No. 6 in
Writ Petition No. 4394/2011 is the petitioner in Writ Petition
No. 5294/2011. Respondent No. 4 in Writ Petition No. 5294/2011
is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4394/2011. The parties are
hereinafter referred to as per their original status in the suit for
purpose of convenience.
2. The facts in short as appearing from the petitions are as
below :
3. The plaintiffs filed R.C.S. No. 412/1982 seeking decree of
perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing
3 of 18
4 wp 4394-2011.odt
their peaceful possession over suit land bearing Gat No. 127
admeasuring 4 H 62 R from village Aher Dhanora, Taluka and
District Beed. It is the case that, the plaintiffs are protected tenant
and are entitled to retain their possession. They cannot be evicted
without following due process of law. The defendants appeared in
the suit. It is the case of the defendants that, their grandfather
purchased the land from original owner one Fatimabi in the year
1948. The issue therefore was framed about the tenancy and was
referred the same to the tenancy authorities.
4. The learned Agricultural Tribunal considered total 14
documents produced by the defendants and three documents
produced by the plaintiffs. The learned Tribunal held that, the
grandfather of the defendants one Patilbuwa had purchased the
land from original owner Fatimabi in the year 1948. Though
there is no sale deed on record the survey record of the year 1950
of the village shows the said sale transaction. On the basis of
available record it is held that, father of the plaintiffs was tenant.
The defendants challenged the said judgment before the learned
Deputy Collector. The learned Deputy Collector held in favour of
defendants and allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed
4 of 18
5 wp 4394-2011.odt
by the learned Agricultural Tribunal. Against the said judgment
the plaintiffs filed revision before the learned Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal under section 91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "H.T.A.L.
Act" for the sake of brevity). The revision came to be allowed.
The order passed by the learned Deputy Collector came to be set
aside restoring the order passed by the learned Tahsildar.
5. A Writ Petition No. 1175/2001 came to be filed in this
Court. This Court on 05.09.2001 disposed of the writ petition by
setting aside the impugned order of the learned Member, Revenue
Tribunal. The matter was remanded for fresh enquiry by keeping
it open to the parties to lead evidence in the matter if they desire.
Thus, the second round started after remand. The learned
Tahsildar again decided in favour of the defendants. The said
order again came to be challenged by the plaintiffs before the
learned Collector. The learned Deputy Collector held that, there is
no evidence on record to show as to who was actually cultivating
the land during 1948 to 1958. From 1959-60 till 1979, name of
Rajaram Patilbuwa is shown in cultivation column and held that
the heirs of Rajaram Patilbuwa are the tenants. The said decision
5 of 18
6 wp 4394-2011.odt
came to be challenged by filing two revision petitions by these
petitioners before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
bearing Revision No. 68-B-2003-B and 69-B-2003-B respectively.
The learned Member of the Tribunal dismissed both the revisions.
The petitioners are thus before this Court.
6. The learned advocate Mr. Deshpande for the petitioners
vehemently argued that the petitioners had proved their case
before the learned Tahsildar in earlier round. Except staking their
claims as tenants, the plaintiffs could not produce any evidence on
record. The defendants produced 14 documents in their favour
which clearly establishes that the land was purchased by their
grandfather from the original owner Smt. Fatimabi in the year
1948. Since thereafter there are continuous entries in the revenue
record showing that it is the defendants ancestor who was in
possession. The only documents produced before the learned
Tahsildar by the plaintiffs were the judgment passed by the
learned S.D.O. dated 06.02.1986, copies of 7/12 extract in respect
of survey No. 54 from 1959-60 onwards and copies of 7/12
extract of survey No. 57-A from 1959-60 onwards. There is
nothing to show their possession or their entries in any of the
6 of 18
7 wp 4394-2011.odt
revenue record prior to 1958. To claim protected tenancy it was
necessary to show possession as tenant on the tillers day prior to
1958. The claim of the plaintiffs therefore cannot be accepted as
protected tenant. As against that, the defendants produced 14
documents i.e. mutation entry no. 97, survey register (pahani
patrak) of survey Nos. 61, 62 of the village, copy of agreement to
sale dated 11.07.1975 as regards survey No. 54/1 and 57-A,
mutation entry No. 167, sale deed dated 02.06.1977, mutation
entry No. 179, copies of decree in the Civil Court in Suit No.
412/1982, other record showing possession over the property of
late Janardhan and the record of survey register 1950. All these
documents go to show that it is the defendants who are in
possession. By ignoring all such overwhelming evidence on record
the finding is recorded against the defendants. The authorities
have thus measurably failed to come to proper conclusion. The
petitioners/defendants have purchased the property in 1977 from
the original defendant Nos. 3 to 5. Till the lifetime of Rajaram, no
dispute was raised by the plaintiffs. The certificate of tenancy is
not on record. In the appeal, the learned Collector considered the
document about which there was no pleading. Section 5 of the
7 of 18
8 wp 4394-2011.odt
H.T.A.L. Act does not have any application as the third proviso of
section 5 came into force on 08.06.1956. The ordinance is of
1960. On the material dates i.e. on 08.06.1958 and 18.10.1960
the possession is shown of Rajaram. Thus, no benefit of section 5
of the H.T.A.L. Act could be given to plaintiffs. It was necessary
for the plaintiffs to specifically prove its claim of tenancy. On all
these grounds, he submits that, till now there is no certificate on
record showing the plaintiffs to be tenants. He relies upon the
judgments in the cases of (i) Ganga Prasad Rai Vs. Kedar Nath Rai
and another reported in 2019 SCC Online All 5881 and (ii) M/s.
Puri Investments Vs. M/s. Young Friends and Co. & Ors. reported
in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 279 in support of his claim that no case can
be considered beyond pleading. He further relies upon the
judgment in the case of Durga Das Vs. Collector and Others
reported in 1996 (5) SCC 618 and in the case of M/s. Nilesh
Construction Company and another Vs. Mrs. Gangubai and Others
reported in AIR 1982 Bombay 491. He thus prays for allowing the
writ petitions by setting aside the judgment and order passed by
the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by
holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove their tenancy.
8 of 18
9 wp 4394-2011.odt
7. The learned advocate Mr. Thigle for respondent No. 1
vehemently opposes the petitions. He submits that, in view of
section 2 (R) of the H.T.A.L. Act, the tenant is deemed to be a
tenant if he was in possession on particular date. In such cases no
specific certificate is required under section 38 of the H.T.A.L. Act.
The authorities were only called upon to decide as to who is
protected tenant. He invited attention to certain documents from
record and proceeding to show that in pahani patrak the name of
deceased Rajaram, ancestor of plaintiffs is shown as a person to be
in possession in the year 1953. He submits that, entire record is
not available as some of the record is burnt in the office of the
authorities. His further submission is that, there are no contra
entries. The learned Tahsildar might have forgotten to take on
record the mutation entries from time to time. There is no
difference between term tenant and protected tenant. In section 8
protected tenant is only a deeming fiction relevant for section
38-E. The entry in the year 1977 in favour of defendants is taken
on the basis of sale deed and not on the basis of tenancy
proceedings. The learned Tahsildar has rightly discussed the
record from the survey register. If Patilbuwa was tenant in the
9 of 18
10 wp 4394-2011.odt
property the plaintiffs also naturally become tenant.
8. In the alternative, he submits that, now the only question
will be of extent of right and therefore, three issues were rightly
casted. He submits that, there is no record showing that there was
termination of tenancy. Entry is shown in the name of Patilbuwa
ancestor of the plaintiffs of 1950-53 and 1959 for a period in
between the record is not available and therefore, logically it will
have to be taken that the plaintiffs were in possession even in the
year 1958 as the record prior to that date and also after the date is
available. For period in between neither party has produced any
material. He thus submits that, purposive interpretation requires
to be given. He relies upon the judgment in the case of Mhadappa
Sangappa Bhange and Ors. Vs. Shivaji Narsu Dhormare and Ors.,
MANU/MH/0618/2010 in support of his contention that only
factum of possession needs to be seen. He further relies upon the
judgment in the cases of Thota Sridhar Reddy and Others Vs.
Mandala Ramulamma and others, (2021) 16 SCC 1 and Shalini
Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, (2010) 8
SCC 329.
10 of 18
11 wp 4394-2011.odt
9. In rejoinder, learned advocate Mr. Deshpande for the
petitioners submits that, the plaintiffs did not prove their case at
any point of time. Proposition under section 37 of the H.T.A.L. Act
is not disputed, however, there has to be record to show
entitlement of the plaintiffs under section 34 of the H.T.A.L. Act.
There is no record of 1950. The survey register of 1953 shows
name of the plaintiffs. The parties have also taken this Court
through Rule No. 13 form No. 7, sections 37 and 38. In support of
his submissions he submits that, the vague pleading need not be
considered. Party claiming to be protected tenant has to
specifically prove the factum of tenancy.
10. In the case of Ganga Prasad Rai (supra), the Allahabad High
Court considered the substantial questions. One of the question
was about the rules of pleadings in Order VI of the C.P.C. It is held
that, the plaint must conform to the provisions of order VI of the
C.P.C. The parties are subject to limitations of the pleading before
the Court. The Courts cannot travel beyond pleadings and cannot
grant relief not prayed for. No Court can receive evidence of facts
which are not stated in the pleadings. The Court considered the
judgment in the case of Sri. Venkataramana Devaru Vs. The State
11 of 18
12 wp 4394-2011.odt
of Mysore, reported in AIR 1958 SC 255. It is held in the said
judgment that, a point not raised in the pleading could not be
allowed to be raised even as a pure question of law. The object of
pleading is to enable the opposite party to controvert them and to
adduce evidence in support of their case. In that view the
contention of the party therein was not accepted as it was beyond
the pleadings.
11. In the case of M/s. Nilesh Construction (supra), this Court
also held that the vague pleading cannot be considered. The
pleading has to be clear.
12. In the case of M/s. Puri Investments (supra), the Hon'ble
Apex Court held that, the finding of facts or questions of law
would be perverse in the cases where those are (i) erroneous on
account of non consideration of material evidence, or (ii) being
conclusions which are contrary to the evidence, or (iii) based on
inferences that are impermissible in law.
13. In the case of Durga Das (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court
considered that, mere entries in revenue records, mutation entries
12 of 18
13 wp 4394-2011.odt
etc. do not confer any right over property. It is only an entry for
collection of the land revenue from the person in possession.
14. So far as the judgments submitted by the learned advocate
Mr. Thigle for respondent No. 1 are concerned, in the case of
Shalini Shyam Shetty (supra), dispute was over tenancy. The
Court considered the power under Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India. There is no dispute that the powers vested
with this Court under Article 227 are very wide and at the same
time needs to be exercised only when the Court comes to a
conclusion that, the authority subordinate to the Court has acted
excessively beyond jurisdiction. An argument is sought to be
advanced by learned advocate Mr. Thigle that this Court need not
entertain the petition in the present case, as the authority has
acted within his bound.
15. Thota Sridhar Reddy (supra) was a case under section 38-E
of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The claim of the tenant
was of the protected tenancy. The stand of the landlord was of
surrender of the tenancy rights. The case of surrender was found
to be invalid. The Court held that, it is not always necessary that
13 of 18
14 wp 4394-2011.odt
the protected tenant should also be in possession on the dates
specified in the notification issued under Section 38-E of the A.P.
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It
was under that Act where there is complete embargo on the right
of the land holder to align land to a third party without giving
option to the tenant to purchase the land. There was also one
more factor that the sale deed was executed by the owner by
obtaining permission under sections 47 and 48 of that Act. No
protected tenancy was created during the lifetime of the paternal
uncle of the appellant therein. His legal representatives also did
not claim such tenancy. The protected tenancy was sought and
ownership certificate was claimed after more than 40 years.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Boddam
Narsimha Vs. Hasan Ali Khan, (2007) 11 SCC 410 held that, a
person becomes protected tenant when he is holder of the land on
the dates or for the periods mentioned in sections 35, 37 and 37-A
of the Act. It is held that, once a person becomes a protected
tenant, he is entitled to an ownership certificate under section
38-E. This Court finds that, both these judgments are not helpful
to the respondent in the present case.
14 of 18
15 wp 4394-2011.odt
17. In the case of Mahadappa Sangappa Bhange and Ors.
(supra), in that case a suit was filed by the landlord for possession
from the tenant. It was held that, the landlord has no right to
dispossess the tenant who is declared as owner and having
certificate as protected tenant. In the said case, though the
learned Trial Court had recorded above conclusion and dismissed
the suit, the District Court allowed the appeal. It was a case that,
the tenant was found to be inducted prior to 1957 as his entry was
shown as tenant in 1957. In that view he was held to be protected
tenant. It is further considered that, the tenancy would mean any
one who is in lawful possession of the land on the specified date.
There it was clear case that, the tenant was inducted prior to
1957.
18. Considering all above judgments this Court has to find out
as to whether in the present case there is any evidence to show
that the predecessor of respondents/original plaintiffs were in
possession on the dates mentioned in the Act. The whole
argument of the plaintiffs developed in this case is that 1959
onwards the entries stand in the name of the tenant. Such entry is
found even prior to 1953 and therefore, it needs to be presumed
15 of 18
16 wp 4394-2011.odt
that for the intervening period there was a possession of the
tenant over the land. However, there is no clear evidence to that
effect. It has clearly come on record that, it was the
defendants/present petitioners whose predecessor in title was in
possession. It is also seen that, the question as regards tenancy
had attained finality till the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The uncle of
the present plaintiffs had filed a suit and even withdrawn the suit
after losing on the issue of tenancy till the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Once he had accepted the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
there was no question of reopening the said issue by anyone
claiming through him or by any other person in the present case.
19. The plaintiff's own case is based upon the theory that they
became protected tenant, however, they have measurably failed to
produce any record before the authorities. Pahani patrak which is
relied before this Court to show the possession of the tenants over
the land is not even pleaded. As discussed early, the defendants
produced voluminous documents in support of their case whereas,
the plaintiffs could produce only three documents which are not
sufficient to prove their case.
16 of 18
17 wp 4394-2011.odt
20. This Court has thus considered all the aspects. The finding
of the learned Member, M.R.T. is thus totally erroneous while
setting aside the order passed by the learned Collector/(lower
authority). The learned Member of the M.R.T. has not discussed
as to how the finding recorded by the lower authority was
erroneous or without any evidence. As against that, the lower
authorities have rightly considered the claim of the present
petitioners and have concluded in their favour. This Court thus
finds that, interference is certainly called for.
21. The writ petitions are allowed. The impugned judgment
and order dated 03.05.2011 passed by the learned Member,
M.R.T. is quashed and set aside. The order passed by the learned
Additional Tahsildar, Beed in File No. 35/TNC/1 dated 29.07.2002
stands restored.
22. The writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
23. At this stage, the learned advocate for the respondent seeks
stay to the effect and execution of this order for a period of eight
17 of 18
18 wp 4394-2011.odt
(08) weeks from today.
24. In fact, it is for the petitioners who are in possession, no
immediate action is likely to be followed. However, since a
request is made, there shall be stay to the effect and execution of
this order for a period of four (04) weeks from today.
( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )
P.S.B.
18 of 18
