[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Madhav Bhujangrao Kulkarni And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 22 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2634
WP-6475-2013
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6475 OF 2013
1. Madhav Bhujangrao Kulkarni,
Age : 62 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Arsoli, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Apparao S/o. Atmaram Kulkarni,
Age : 70 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Arsoli, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad ... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Deputy Collector (Land Reform)
Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Nagnath S/o. Digambar Kharade,
Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture,
R/o. Arsoli, Tq. Bhoom,
Dist. Osmanabad.
3. The Tahsildar, Bhoom,
Tahsil Office, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad.
4. The Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad ... Respondents
.....
Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Petitioners
Mr. S. G. Sangle, AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 - State.
Mr. B. S. Kudale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 06 JANUARY 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 22 JANUARY 2026
WP-6475-2013
-2-
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. At
the request of both the sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage
of admission.
2. Petitioners herein are taking exception to the judgment
and order dated 11.07.2013 passed by learned Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No.24/B/ 2011/O,
setting aside the order of learned Deputy Collector, Osmanabad dated
09.03.2011, upholding the order of learned Tahsildar, Bhoom in
proceedings bearing no.2008/TNC/WS/3789.
3. In short, it is the case of petitioners that, subject matter
land gut no.512 of village Arsoli, was owned by one Digambar in the
capacity of protected tenant to the extent of 8 acre 13 guntha land
and ownership certificate was duly bestowed on him on 21.06.1972.
Petitioners had purchased subject land from the wife of original
tenant/owner under registered sale deed dated 11.01.1977 that to
from the eastern side. It is their further case that respondent no.2,
i.e. adoptive son of Digambar, had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 35 of
1977 for declaration and perpetual injunction on the premise that,
his father was cultivating entire suit land survey no.139 and was
declared as a tenant by tenancy court and on the strength of said
WP-6475-2013
issue declared by the tenancy court, he claimed to be tenant of
remaining land. It is their specific case that, tenancy was not in the
capacity of a "protected tenant". As Tahsildar had granted tenancy
right, the decision was questioned by approaching Deputy Collector
as due procedure was not followed before tenancy court and even
there was no record of depositing the required amount. Therefore,
learned Deputy Collector had demanded the matter back for fresh
consideration, but again Tahsildar passed similar order. That,
respondent No.2 challenged the order of Deputy Collector before
Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. However, by order dated
11.07.2013, learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was
pleased to confirm the order of Tahsildar, against which instant
revision has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that,
though tenancy court had bestowed ownership certificate in favour of
respondent no.2 Nagnath, who is son of Digambar, it is their case that
there was nothing on record that, he was protected tenant. There was
no evidence suggesting payment of requisite fees. Moreover, by
virtue of sale deed, they had acquired interest in land to the extent of
8 acre 13 guntha that to from eastern side out of survey no.139 (Gat
No.512). All such aspects are not considered by the tenancy court as
well as learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That, there is denial
WP-6475-2013
of principle of natural justice. In fact, proceedings were not
maintainable or tenable before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It
is her submission that said authority, without examining the record
confirmed the ownership certificate in favour of respondent No.2.
Learned counsel was very emphatic in submitting that, even
otherwise father of Nagnath i.e. Digambar was only entitled for 8
acre, 13 guntha land and such order was confirmed, and therefore,
adoptive son i.e. respondent no.2 has no right to initiate proceedings
regarding remaining land. For above reasons, she urges to set aside
the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated
11.07.2013 by allowing the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 would justify the
orders of tenancy court, civil court as well as Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal and according to him, it is based on the analysis of record
and on consideration of settled legal position. He sought reliance on
the judgment of this court passed in Writ Petition No.486 of 1983 in
the case of Bharatlal v. Kondiba Govinda Jadhav and Ors.
6. Heard. Perused the record. It appears that, Digambar
Ramchandra Kharade claimed to be tenant over the suit property
from eastern side of survey no.139. As there was interference from
present petitioners, father of respondent no.2, Digambar Kharade
WP-6475-2013
instituted suit bearing R.C.C. No.35/1977 in the Court of Civil Judge,
Junior Division, Bhoom, urging for permanent injunction against
defendants and learned civil court, in the said suit framed issues and
one of the issue bearing No.2 being on the point of tenancy, referred
such issue to the tenancy court for its decision and to revert back the
findings. In consequence to it, learned Additional Tahsildar, Bhoom
seems to have ascertained the tenancy and by order dated
24.04.1986 affirming the tenancy and accordingly intimated the civil
court and record show that, suit of Digambar came to be decreed.
7. Record shows that, son of Digambar, namely Nagnath
instituted proceedings for ownership before the learned Additional
Tahsildar, Bhoom and ownership certificate was issued.
8. The order of learned Additional Tahsildar, Bhoom was
challenged by present petitioners before Deputy Collector (Land
Reforms), Osmanabad, who by order dated 30.08.2003 remanded the
matter back to the learned Tahsildar, Bhoom, by setting aside the
ownership certificate issued in favour of Nagnath primarily on the
ground that present petitioners were not heard.
9. Again learned Tahsildar, Bhoom took up the proceedings
and by affording opportunity to each side, again confirmed the
WP-6475-2013
ownership in favour of respondent no.2 Nagnath regarding
ownership certificate. Present petitioners seems to have again
challenged the same before learned Deputy Collector, General
Administration, Osmanabad and who was pleased to allow present
petitioner's claim setting aside the decision of learned Tahsildar
dated 27.02.2009.
10. Record shows that, present respondent challenged the
above order before learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad by filing Revision bearing Case No.24/B/2011/O, the
learned tribunal was pleased to allow the revision by order dated
11.07.2013.
Above is the history of litigation between present
petitioners and respondent No.2.
11. What is emerging from above discussion and record is
that, Civil Court while deciding the suit, had referred the issue of
tenancy to the tenancy court, which had appreciated the record and
had granted tenancy certificate in favour of the Digambar declaring
him to be tenant. Present respondent No.2 seems to be the son of
Digambar. It is further emerging that, order dated 24.041986 passed
by learned Tahsildar, Bhoom granting tenancy in favour of Digambar
was never questioned by present petitioners, at any point of time,
WP-6475-2013
and as such, as pointed out by learned counsel for respondent no.2,
the same had attained finality. Further, it does emerge, as is rightly
held by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, grant of
certificate under section 38(6) of Hyderabad Tenancy Act, is neither
a decision nor an order so as to question the same by way of appeal.
Since grant of tenancy certificate, present petitioners seems to have
gone for over two decades. Even civil court, on complete appreciation
of record and evidence, and after receipt of finding from tenancy
court, to which the issue was specifically referred, suit has been
decreed in favour of Digambar. Therefore, here, there are civil court's
findings affirming tenancy of Digambar. The issue tried to be raised
that, there was no finding that either Digambar or Nagnath to be
protected tenant amounts to the creation of fresh controversy which
was never under consideration before any of the forums below. In
fact, the order of remand passed by learned Deputy Collector itself
was misconceived.
12. In the light of above discussion, there being no merit in
the writ petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. The Rule is
discharged.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
