[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Mr. Vitthal Mahadev Shelke vs Mr. Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha And Ors. on 12 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:447
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13812 OF 2017
Vitthal Mahadev Shelke (since deceased,
through LRs) and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha and Others ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13867 OF 2017
Vitthal Mahadev Shelke (since deceased,
through LRs) and Others ...Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Anilkumar Makhecha and Others ...Respondents
------------
Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Amey C. Sawant, Ms. Neha Parte, Mr. Pratik
Sabrad, Mr. Eshwaree Kudalkar for Petitioner.
Mr. Shardul Singh, Ms. Prerna Gandhi and Mr. Ninad Thikhekar for
Respondent No. 4 in WP No. 13867 of 2017.
------------
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : JANUARY 12, 2026.
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule. With consent, rule made returnable forthwith and taken up
for final hearing together. Both Petitions raise identical issues
challenging the same order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short
"MRT"]. Commons submissions were canvassed and the Petitions are
disposed of by this common order. For the sake of factual clarity, the
Sairaj 1 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
facts of Writ Petition No. 13812 of 2017 has been referred to.
2. By the Petitions, the Petitioners are challenging the judgment
and order dated 11th May 2017 passed by the MRT in Revision
Application No. 258 of 2015 and 259 of 2015 dismissing the revision
applications filed by the present Petitioners against the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer [for short, "SDO"], which had allowed the Appeal
filed by the Respondents challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar
and ALT which resulted in setting aside the declartion of tenancy of the
Petitioners under Section 70(b) of Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short, "Tenancy Act"].
3. Briefly stated, the facts are that the present Petitioners filed an
application in the year 2012 under Section 70(b) of the Tenancy Act
for declaration as a deemed tenant of land bearing Survey No. 173,
Hissa No. 3, situated at village Kolshet, Taluka & District - Thane
pleading cultivation by the Petitioners of the subject land prior to
1957 as tenant. It was contended that the Respondents who were the
owners of the land did not obstruct the cultivation of the Petitioners
and the Petitioners used to pay the rent to the landlords.
4. Evidence was led and the Petitioners produced two rent receipts
of the year 1955-56 and 1957-58 in support of their contention of
payment of rent to the landlord. The Tahsildar and ALT by judgment
and order dated 24th November, 2014 allowed the application declaring
that the Petitioner was a tenant of the land on tiller's day i.e. 1 st April,
Sairaj 2 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
1957. Being aggrieved, the Respondents challenged the order of
Tahsildar by filing an appeal under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act
before the Sub-Divisional Officer which was allowed by Sub-Divisional
Officer by judgment and order dated 14th September, 2015.
5. The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer upsetting the findings of the Tahsildar and ALT filed Revision
Application No. 258 of 2015 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
which by common judgment and order dated 11th May, 2017 dismissed
the Revision Application.
6. Mr. Sabrad, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners has taken
this Court in detail through the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Sub-
Divisional Officer and MRT. He points out page 16 of the Petition
which is the rent receipt of the year 1955-1956 to contend that the
name of the Petitioner is shown in the tenant column. He submits that
Sub-Divisional Officer disturbed the findings of the Tahsildar and ALT
on the ground of limitation whereas the provisions of Section70(b)
does not speak of any limitation. He would submit that the Sub-
Divisional Officer further held that the Petitioners have failed to
produce 7/12 extract without noticing that the rent receipt of the year
1955-56 and 1957-58 had been produced by the Petitioners. He would
further point out that the Sub-Divisional Officer has rendered factually
erroneous finding that the Petitioners have failed to produce the rent
receipt. He would submit that the MRT supplemented the reasons for
Sairaj 3 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
dismissal and has found fault with Tahsildar for holding that there is
possibility that the relation between the tenant and the landlord were
cordial and hence, no receipts were given. He submits that, in fact, the
Tahsildar has taken into consideration the rent receipts for the year
1955-56, 1957-58 for the purpose of arriving at the finding of tenancy.
He submits that the other ground on which the MRT non-suited the
Petitioners was that during evidence, the Petitioner's witness was able
to identify the signature or handwriting on the rent receipts. He would
submit that the rent receipt clearly showed the name of the Petitioner
as tenant and the signature appeared as that of landlord. He submits
that the rent receipts sets out the survey number and also the year and
therefore, ought to have been accepted. He would further submit that
though in the previous hearings before this Court, the Respondents
had raised Section 88(1)(b) of Tenancy Act, there is no notification
produced.
7. Per contra, Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 4 would submit that on 24th November, 1999, the Respondent No. 3
had executed a Development Agreement and Power of Attorney in
favor of Respondent No. 4 and there was a further Development
Agreement and Power of Attorney executed on 31 st October, 2000 by
Respondent Nos. 2 and 5. He submits that at that point of time, the
possession was handed over and therefore, MRT has rightly recorded
that the landlords have been denying the claim of possession and
Sairaj 4 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
cultivation of the Petitioners before the Trial Court. He would further
submit that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not set aside the order of
Tahsildar only on the ground of limitation, but has taken into
consideration that the rent receipts and 7/12 extract were not
produced to show cultivation. He would further submit that MRT has
considered the evidence of the Petitioners that he was not able to
identify the signature or the handwriting in support of his own claim of
tenancy. He points out to the cross-examination of the Respondents
where the Respondents have denied that the Petitioners are
cultivating the land. He submits that as the Petitioners failed to prove
the rent receipts, there was no document on the basis of which the
claim of the Petitioners as tenant could be allowed. He would further
point out that subsequently, in the year 2018, an application was made
to include the subject land within the special township project,
commencement certificates were applied and granted by Thane
Municipal Corporation and on 31st March, 2023, the construction was
completed and Occupancy Certificate came to be issued in respect of
two of the buildings. He submits that in view thereof, no interference is
warranted in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India.
8. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
9. The impugned order of MRT upholds the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer setting aside the order of Tahsildar by considering that in the
Sairaj 5 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
evidence, the Petitioner has not been able to identify the signature or
handwriting on the so-called receipts of the rent produced by him in
support of his own claim of tenancy, Mr. Sabrad is unable to overcome
the difficulty as far this aspect of evidence is concerned. In support of
the Petitioner's claim for tenancy, reliance is placed on these two rent
receipts which have not been proved in evidence. Failure to identify
the signature or the handwriting on the rent receipt is indeed fatal to
the case of the Petitioner.
10. The Petitioners seeks declaration under Section 70(b) as the
tenant within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. The
provisions of Section 4 provides that the person shall be deemed to be
tenant if the person is lawfully cultivating any land belonging to
another person if such land is not cultivated personally by the owner
and if such person is not a member of the owner's family or a servant
on wages or a mortgagee in possession. It is settled that even without
there being an entry in the tenancy column or rent note in favour, a
person, who is in lawful cultivation must be declared as deemed
tenant. The Petitioners were therefore required to establish lawful
cultivation of the subject land. Apart from the rent receipts, which also
have not been proved by the Petitioners, there is no material on record
to arrive at a finding of lawful cultivation of the Respondent's land by
the Petitioners. It is also the case of the Respondents that the rent
receipts produced by the Petitioners are fabricated documents, which
Sairaj 6 of 7
24 WP-13867-2017 (final).doc
was then incumbent on the Petitioners to prove. There is specific
denial in the cross-examination of the Respondents that the
Petitioners were cultivating the land prior to 1957.
11. Having failed to discharge the burden which was cast upon the
Petitioners to show the lawful cultivation of the land by the Petitioner,
the MRT has rightly upheld the findings of Sub-Divisional Officer and
dismissed the Revision Application. The MRT has further taken into
consideration the fact that the landlords have been denying the claim
of possession which is also substantiated from the Development
Agreement and the Power of Attorney executed in the year 1999 and
in the year 2000. Subsequent thereto, the Respondents have carried
out the construction on the said property which has been completed in
the year 2023.
12. In light of above, I find no reason to interfere in the findings
recorded in the impugned order of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in
exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
13. Resultantly, Writ Petitions fail and stand dismissed. Rule is
discharged.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Sairaj 7 of 7
