Bombay High Court
Smt. Gauri W/O Vijaysingh Thakur And ... vs Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ... on 25 November, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:13048
1/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.1430 of 2019
1.Smt. Gauri w/o Vijaysingh Thakur,
aged about 51 years, Occ: Agriculturist
2.Miss. Sonam d/o Vijaysingh Thakur,
aged 32 years, Occ :Agriculturist/Household
3.Amarsingh S/o Vijaysingh Thakur,
Aged about 28 Years, Agriculturist
4.Yashsingh S/o Vijaysingh Thakur,
aged about 22 years, Occ : Agriculturist/Student,
Pet. no. 1 to 4, R/o Old Sorapha,
Near Shani Mandir, Amravati.
5.Sau. Sapana d/o Ashwinsingh Dikshit,
Aged -Major, occ. Housewife,
R/o Sahakar Nagar, Near Adarsh Petrol Pump,
Chandrapur, Tq.& District : Chandrapur ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Nagpur, Divisional Commissioner Premises,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. Sub-Divisional Officer, Amravati,
S.D.O. Office, Amravati.
3.Shri. Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
Registered Public Trust,
Registration No. A-429, (Amravati),
District: Amravati, through it's trustees.
4. Shri. A.M. Palsodkar, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
5. Shri. J.D. Pandhrikar, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
2/11
6. Shri. A.M. Gupta, aged : Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
7. Sau, Vijayatai A Gude, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
8. Shri. S.R. Burange, aged Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
9. Shri. D.M. Shrimali, aged Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
10.Y.S. Mashankar, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Amravati Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
11. A.P. Alsi, aged: Major occ trustee,
Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati.
12.S.P. Potdar, aged: Major
OCC: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
13.Smt. Padmatai Desai, aged: Major [Petition dismissed in
occ: trustee, default against R.13 &
Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati, 16 vide Reg.Order
dt.11.10.19.]
14.Smt. Vidyatai V. Deshpande,
aged: Major occ: trustee,
Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
15.Shri. D.M. Mahajan, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
16.Shri. K.P. Pachkhede, aged Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
17.Shri. D.R. Khandekar, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
18.Shri. Rajendra Pande, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
3/11
19. Shri. M.N. Rudkar, aged: Major occ: trustee,
Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
20.Shri. A.S. Khandelwal, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan, Amravati
21.Ms. M.D. Pathak, aged: Major
occ: trustee, Ambadevi Sansthan,
Amravati.
All C/o Ambadevi Sansthan,
Near Gandhi Chowk, Amravati,
Tah & Dist. Amravati. Respondents
...
Mrs. R.D.Rasekar, Advocate for petitioners.
Mr. J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 3 to 12, 14 and 15, 17
to 21.
Mr. A.G.Mate, AGP for respondent no.2.
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25-11-2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mrs.R.D.Rasekar, learned counsel for
petitioners, Mr.J.J. Chandurkar, learned counsel for respondent
nos.3 to 12, 14 and 15, 17 and 21 and Mr. A.G.Mate, learned
AGP for respondent no.2.
2. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer, Amravati dated 29.1.2001 whereby the learned
Sub Divisional Officer by exercising the powers under Section 120
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha
Region, Act, 1958 ("the Act" for short) allowed the application
filed by respondent nos.3 to 21-Trustees.
3. The said order was challenged by filing a Tenancy
Revision Case no.TEN/B-19/2001 before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal wherein the petitioners, the Secretary of
respondent no.3 and other Trustees compromised the matter and
on the basis of that compromise, the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Tribunal dropped the proceedings. The said order was challenged
by respondent no.3 and others by filing Writ Petition
No.3644/2002 and this Court, vide its order dated 8.4.2015
disposed the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by
the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal and remanded the same
to the Tribunal directing it to decide the Revision on merits or
passing appropriate order in respect of compromise, according to
law. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Tribunal decided the matter vide its order dated
2nd August, 2018 whereby the Revision filed by the petitioners
came to be dismissed against which the present petition is filed.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently
submits that the application filed before the Sub Divisional Officer
under Section 120 read with Section 36 of the Act itself was not
maintainable. She invited my attention to Sections 36 which
prescribes the procedure for taking possession and Section 100 of
the Act which provides duties of the Tahsildar. As per Section
100 (12) of the Act, the Tahsildar is the Competent Authority to
decide the application for taking possession under Section 36 of
the Act. Also as per Section 100 (18) of the Act, the Tahsildar is
required to take measures for putting the tenant or the landlord
or the agricultural labourer or artisan or person carrying on allied
pursuit into the possession of the land or dwelling house or site
under the Act.
Sub-sections (2) (12) and (18) of Section 100 of the
Act, which read as under:
"(2) to decide whether a person is or was at any time in
the past, a tenant, a protected lessee or an occupancy
tenant;
(12) to decide an application for possession under
section 36.
(18) to take measures for putting the tenant or the
landlord or the agricultural labourer or artisan on
person carrying on allied pursuit into the possession of
the land or dwelling house or site under this Act."
5. She further invited my attention to Section 36 (2) and
(3A) of the Act and submits that the Collector or the Sub
Divisional Officer does not have power to entertain the
application. She vehemently argued that though specific
preliminary objection was raised that whether the Sub Divisional
Officer has power under Sections 36 and 100 of the Act to decide
the issue involved, the Sub Divisional Officer allowed the
application filed by the Trust. She further submits that when the
Authority does not have power, the order passed by the Authority,
itself is nullity being ultra vires in the eyes of law. She further
submits that when this order was challenged before the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal, the matter was
compromised and the Trust had accepted that the petitioners
herein are the legal representatives of the original tenant and
therefore, they have every right to protect their possession. She
further submits that the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal has
rightly accepted the tenancy of the petitioners and in view of
compromise arrived at before it she prayed to quash the order of
Sub Divisional Officer as the application was not maintainable.
Learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ought to have remanded
the matter to the Tahsildar to decide it afresh in tune under
Sections 36 and 100 of the Act. She further submits that as the
application itself was not maintainable, the Authority ought not to
have passed the order.
6. In support of her contention, she relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jugal
Kishore vs State of Maharashtra and others : 1989 Supp (1) SCC
589, and invited my attention to paragraph 6 which is reproduced
below:
"6. It was submitted before us as well as before the High
Court that in view of sub-section (2) of Section 100 of
the Bombay Act, the Tenancy Tahsildar had exclusive
jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy. Section 100 of
the Bombay Act, so far as material for the present
purposes, provides as follows:
100. For the purpose of this Act, the following shall be
the duties and functions to be performed by the
Tahsildar :
(1) to decide whether a person is an agriculturist;
(2) to decide whether a person is or was at any time in
the past, a tenant, a protected lessee or an occupancy
tenant."
7. Considering the above referred decision of the Apex
Court, she submits that the petition needs to be allowed thereby
quashing by setting aside the orders passed by Sub Divisional
Officer and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal by
confirming the compromise arrived between the parties.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents and the
learned AGP for the State support the order passed by the Sub
Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
9. I have considered the rival submissions of both the
parties.
10. From the record, it reveals that the respondents filed
an application under Section 120 read with Section 36 of the Act
for eviction and possession before the Sub Divisional Officer. It
was the specific contention by the respondents/non-applicants
before the Sub Divisional Officer that the petitioners are not the
tenants. They are occupying the suit land unauthorisedly without
there being any authority in law. They specifically submits that as
the petitioners are neither tenants nor the legal heirs of the
original tenant. As far as the compromise is concerned, they
specifically averred that there was no such resolution was passed
by the Trust and the Secretary was not authorised by it to arrive
at compromise.
11. It is specifically contended that the properties are
owned by the Trust and those were given on lease to one Shri
Ajabrao Kunbi, who died on 15.2.1996 at Amravati and there was
specific contention raised that there are no legal heirs to the
deceased Ajabrao Kunbi and as the petitioners herein have
encroached upon the fields and they are occupying the said land
unauthorizedly and being trespassers they do not have legal right
to continue the possession and therefore, the application was
filed under Section 120 read with Section 36 of the Act. The said
application was considered by the learned Sub Divisional Officer.
12. To decide the controversy whether the learned Sub
Divisional Officer is empowered to decide the said application, it
is useful to refer to Section 120 of the Act which reads as under:
"120. Any person unauthorizedly occupying or
wrongfully in possession of any land.
(a) the transfer of which either by the act of parties
or by the operation of law is invalid under the
provisions of this Act,
(b) the management of which has been assumed
under the said provisions, or
(c) to the use and occupation of which he is not
entitled under the said provisions and the said
provisions do not provide for the eviction of such
person,
may be summarily evicted by the Collector
after such inquiry as he deems fit".
13. If any person is in unauthorized or wrongful
possession on any land, the Collector is an authority under the
Act, to pass an order of eviction
Section 2 (6) of the Act defines the Collectors which
includes an Additional Collector and an Assistant or Deputy
Collector and therefore, the application filed by the Trust under
Section 120 and 36 of the Act for evicting the unauthorized
person from the suit land was perfectly maintainable.
14. The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Jugal Kishore (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioners is not applicable to the present case.
15. As regards the compromise is concerned, pursuant to
the remand order dated 8.4.2014 passed by this Court, the
learned Maharashtra Land Revenue Code held that Sub Divisional
Officer has exercised the powers under Section 120 of the Act. It
further held that the tenant Ajabrao Kunbi whose name was
recorded in revenue record was not having legal heir and
therefore, the petitioners were not having any legal right to hold
the possession. A compromise was entered by the persons who
were not authorised by the Trust and no such resolution was
passed thereby authorizing one person Mr. Keole to enter into
compromise and therefore, the possession of the petitioners was
held to be unauthorised one.
16. Considering the above legal provisions and the facts
of the case, I find that the learned Sub Divisional Officer and
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code have considered the matter as
per the facts involved and the provisions of the Act. Therefore, I
do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by both
the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The petition stands dismissed.
(ii) There shall be no order as to costs.
(Siddheshwar S. Thombre, J)
mukund ambulkar
Signed by: Ambulkar (MLA)
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/11/2025 18:35:04
