Bombay High Court
Bapu Sakarji Sanap vs Padmakar Narhar Deshmukh And Ors. on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:31866
-1-
WP1268.98.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1268 1998 WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11064 OF 2021
Bapu s/o Sakaraji Sanap
(Deceased through LRs)
1-A Shahadev s/o Bapurao Sanap
age 56 years, occ. Agril.
1-B Radhabai w/o Ramkisan Aghav
age 63 years, occ. Agril.
1-C Subhadrabai w/o Bhaskar Dhakne
age 59 years, occ. Agril
1-D Janabai s/o shahadev Nagargoje
age 54 years, occ. Agril.,
All r/o Wadzari
Tq. Patoda, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioners
versus
1. Padmakar s/o Narhar Deshmukh
(Deceased through LRs)
1-A) Ashwini d/o Padmakar Deshmukh
@ Ashwini w/o Satyavijay Kulkarni
age 35 years, occ. Housewife
r/o Rampuri, Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed.
1-B) Aboli d/o Padmakar Deshmkukh
age 27 years, occ. Student
r/o Bidkin, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Madhukar s/o Narhar Deshmukh
age 42 years, occ. Service,
r/o 1786, Sadashiv Peth Pune
-2-
WP1268.98.odt
Vidyarthi Griha Pune,
Tq. & Dist. Pune.
3. Chanrakant s/o Narhar Deshmukh
age 37 years, occ. Service
r/o Dr. Dhondiraj Apartment,
Chinchawada Gaon, Pune 400 033.
4. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Mr. Kedar Warad, Advocate holding for Mr. S. V. Warad, Advocate for
the Petitioner.
Smt. R. R. Tandale, AGP for the State.
Mr. D. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. R. P. Dhase, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.
RESERVED ON : 8th OCTOBER, 2025.
PRONOUNCED ON : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Petition arises out of the proceeding under Section
98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ("HTAL" for
sake of brevity). The proceeding is initiated in the second round by
present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who claim to be the owners of the
suit land. They sought eviction of the Petitioner under Section 98A of
HTAL. Petitioner is land tenant in the land and is in possession.
2. Civil Application No. 11064/2021 is filed by Petitioners
for production of documents i.e. revenue record from 1956 to 1961.
WP1268.98.odt
3. The facts in short as stated in the Petition are that the
Petitioner (deceased father of present Petitioners) happened to be the
tenant inducted in the suit land prior to 1955 i.e. prior to Hyderabad
Abolition of Inams and Cash Grants Act, 1955 (for short 'Abolition of
Inams Act') came into force on 20.07.1955 and prior to notification
date i.e. 01.07.1960. Description of the suit lands is as under :-
Survey No. Gut No. Area
124/B 464 5 A 20 G
125/A 422 4A 3 G
128/A 421 6 A 13 G
139/A 419 4 A 10 G
Total - 20 A 06 G
Petitioner was inducted by landlord-deceased Devidas
Deshmukh. Devidas filed proceeding under Section 98 of the HTAL
for summary eviction of the Petitioner before the Collector. The same
was immediately withdrawn. Devidas, later on, filed Regular Civil
Suit No. 35/1997 for declaration of ownership and for recovery of
possession. In the said proceeding, the Petitioner appeared and filed
an Application under Section 99A for framing of issue of tenancy and
to refer the same to the Tenancy Court. Accordingly, the issue was
framed and was referred to the Additional Tahsildar, Patoda. The
WP1268.98.odt
said issue came to be decided by order dated 29.05.1972 in favour of
the Petitioner holding that he is the tenant in the land. The landlord
carried the challenge till Supreme Court by filing SLP No.
13137/1984. The same also came to be dismissed by order dated
07.01.1985. On losing in the SLP, landlord Devidas withdrew the
suit. After conclusion of the proceeding in favour of the tenant-
present Petitioner, the entire dispute came to an end.
4. Devidas died issueless. After demise of Devidas, his
nephews i.e. present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 started obstructing
possession of Petitioner over the suit lands. The Petitioner, therefore,
filed a suit seeking injunction against Respondents and the same
came to be decreed. Though Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 accepted the
decree, Respondent No. 1, however, challenged it by filing an Appeal.
The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with cost.
Respondent No. 1 also moved the Collector under Section 98A of
HTAL for summary eviction. Said proceeding came to be dismissed
by the Collector holding that the Petitioner is in lawful possession.
Respondent thereafter approached Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
It is for the first time, a case is made out by the Respondent that
there was a litigation pending between him and the erstwhile tenant,
WP1268.98.odt
which is accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the order
passed by the Deputy Collector and allowed the Application under
Section 98 of the HTAL by judgment and order dated 09.12.1997. It
is thus, the Petitioner is before this Court represented by his sons -
present Petitioners.
5. It is the case of the Respondents that in view of Section
6(3) of the Abolition of Inams Act, the rights are not transferable
without prior sanction of the Collector as the lands are Madad Mash
Inam lands. It is their case that the Petitioner was not in possession
at the relevant time and there was no question of Petitioner getting
right of protected tenant.
6. On this case, learned Advocate Mr. Warad vehemently
submits that the issue as regard tenancy had attained finality till the
Supreme Court between the Petitioner and the erstwhile landlord
Devidas. Respondents had no right thereafter to initiate any
proceeding. If they step into the shoes of deceased Devidas, they
have to accept the outcome of the earlier round of litigation. Their
action is barred by the principles of res judicata. It is held that the
Petitioner was always in possession. Under Section 98 of HTAL
WP1268.98.odt
possession is to be resorted only in the cases where the case is of
unauthorised possession of a person who is sought to be evicted by
the landlord. In the present case, once it is held that Petitioner's
possession is lawful, there was no question of resorting the
provisions of Section 98 of the Act. Respondent, for the first time,
sought to introduce a case under Section 6(3) of the Abolition of
Inams Act. In the earlier round, no such case was made out. The
learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, thus committed an
error in accepting the case of the Respondents for the first time. To
support his submissions, he places reliance on the following
judgments :-
(i) AIR 1966 SC 1961
State of West Bengal vs. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and
others
(ii) (1975) 1 SCC 686
Rangnath vs. Daulatrao and others
7. Appearance of two Advocates is recorded on behalf the
Respondents i.e. learned Advocates Mr. Dhase and Mr. Kulkarni. This
Court, therefore, heard both the learned Advocates. Mr. Dhase
submits that in view of Section 6(3) of the Abolition of Inams Act,
there was no prior sanction obtained before transferring the rights or
WP1268.98.odt
creating tenancy. He gave genealogy that original owner Ganpat was
having two sons Devidas and Narhari. Devidas died issueless.
Present Respondents are sons of Narhari and thus, they got right
after demise of Devidas over the land. He submits that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has rightly accepted the case of the
Respondents and hence no interference is required. Learned
Advocate Mr. Kulkarni also supports the order. Learned Advocate
Mr. Dhase relies upon following judgments :-
(i) 1996 Mh.L.J. 443
Devidasrao vs. Rangnath
(ii) 1965 Mh.L.J. 881
Dattatraya Sadashiv Dhond vs. Ganpati Raghu Gaoli
(Full Bench)
(iii) AIR 1976 Bombay 372
Nagnathappa vs. Shrinivas and another
(iv) 2004(3) All M.R. 549
Bhiva Gangaram Landge & others vs. State of Maharashtra
and others.
(v) 2001(3) Bom.C.R. 587
Govind Annatrao Upadhya & others vs. State of Maharashtra
& others
(vi) 1981 Bom.C.R. 747
Sadashiv Rangnath vs. Shaikh Biban Shaikh Balambhai
& others
(vii) 1983(1) Bom.C.R. 17
WP1268.98.odt
Tukaram Laxman and others vs. Sk. Ameer s/o Sk. Osman
& others.
(viii) 1971 AIR(SC) 1859
State of Maharashtra vs. Lazmen Abaji : Syed Ahmed son of
Pasham
8. Considering that the issue as regards tenancy was
already concluded in a litigation between deceased Devidas and the
Petitioner, this Court need not go back to that issue as the same has
attained finality till the Supreme Court.
9. Petitioner, during the course of argument, showed from
additional record that all along possession of the Petitioner is shown
in revenue entries over the lands as a tenant of deceased Devidas.
There is no counter to this by the Respondents. The possession of
Petitioner over the suit land thus, will have to be accepted all
throughout.
10. Both the parties have relied upon Full Bench judgment in
case of Dattatraya vs. Ganpati (Supra). The Full Bench of this Court
was dealing with the question relating to the interpretation of the
provisions of Abolition of Inams Act. It was considered that all the
provisions of the act did not came into force on 20.07.1955. There
WP1268.98.odt
were different dates for bringing into force different provisions of the
Act. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal took a view that as
per the Abolition of Inams Act, the tenant held no right and there
was no right left to file Application under Section 44 of the HTAL in
one of the applications therein. In another Application, Petitioners
were shown to be holders of Deshmukh Inam. Those were abolished
with effect from 01.07.1960 under Section 2A read with Section 1(3)
of the Act. In that case, Petitioner made an Application for possession
of lands on 26.03.1959. The said Application was rejected by the
Tribunal on the same ground in earlier Application. The questions
were thus, whether to claim right a person has to be in possession of
the land on 20.07.1955 or 01.07.1960 ? Whether the Inamdar is
entitled to the right of an occupant under Sections 5 or 6 of the
Abolition of Inams Act, if the Application is made under HTAL ?
Considering that the provisions came into effect on different dates in
different parts, this Court answered the first question in affirmative.
For the second question, it was held that the tenancy was terminated
on the date on which the landholder made an Application for
possession of land to the Tahsildar under Section 44(2) of the Act. So
far as next question is concerned, it is answered that the possession
as on 01.07.1960 should be considered for deciding as to who is
- 10 -
WP1268.98.odt
entitled to the rights of occupant. The last question was answered
that the Inamdar would be entitled to the rights of an occupant if
final order for possession had been made in his favour before
01.07.1960.
11. In the present case, it is a matter of record as concluded
by all the authorities that it is the Petitioner who was in possession
since 1955 till 1961. Section 2A of the Act provides for the powers
of the State Government to decide the question relating to Inams and
appeals when the question arises as to whether any land is Inam
land and whether the Inam is held with or without condition of
service and not coupled with remission of whole or part of the land
revenue, whether any Inam is a community service Inam or watan,
whether a commutation settlement in respect of any watan has or
has not been effected. In the present case, there is no case that any
appeal is preferred to the State Government under Abolition of Inams
Act.
12. Section 6 of the Abolition of Inams Act deals with the
occupancy right in respect of occupant land to which Section 5 does
not apply. Section 5 deals with occupancy right in respect of land
- 11 -
WP1268.98.odt
comprised in an Inam held in perpetuity and which was alienable.
The present case is under Section 6(3) which provides that
occupancy granted under sub-section (1) shall not be transferable
without previous sanction of the Collector and except payment of
such sum to the State Government. In the present case, Devidas
never resorted to any of the provisions of Abolition of Inams Act. This
Court thus finds that there is no question of considering the
provisions under that Act.
13. There is no doubt in the present case that the earlier
round of litigation came to an end by withdrawal of the suit by
deceased Devidas after the issue of tenancy had attained finality till
the Supreme Court. In the lifetime of Devidas, he never resorted or
took a ground under any of the provisions of Abolition of Inams Act.
For the first time a case was introduced by the present Respondents.
The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, thus, erred in
considering the provisions under Abolition of Inams Act.
14. This Court finds substance in the case of Petitioner that
since the rights of the Petitioner have been concluded as tenant in
the land, there was no question of entertaining the second round of
- 12 -
WP1268.98.odt
litigation at the behest of the present Respondents. On factual
aspects, Petitioners have positively shown that it is the Petitioner
Devidas who was in possession since 1955 till 1961. Taking case of
the Respondents even for argument that the rights were not
transferable, still those are only in cases where their possession is
shown on the dates on which the provisions came into effect.
Admittedly, on both the dates, it is the Petitioner who was in
possession in the capacity as tenant. In any case, this Court does
not find any case having been made out before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal to allow the proceeding filed by the Respondents.
The Petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed by making rule
absolute in terms of prayer clause 'C'. Petition thus stands allowed in
terms of prayer clause 'C'. Rule made absolute.
15. In view of disposal of the Petition, pending Application, if
any, does not survive and stands disposed of.
(KISHORE C. SANT)
Judge
dyb
