Narendrakumar B. Shah And Ors. vs Madhukar Vasudeo Kanade And Ors. on 11 March, 2026

Author: Amit Borkar

Bench: Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:11960
                                                                                  12-3757-2009 final.doc

                    MPBalekar

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 3757 OF 2009

                    Narendrakumar B. Shah and Ors.                   ... Petitioners
                              V/s.
                    Madhukar Vasudeo Kanade and Ors.                 ... Respondents

                    Mr. R.D. Soni i/by Ram & Co. for the petitioners.
                    Mr. H.D. Mulla, AGP, for the State - Respondent Nos. 6
                    to 9.


                                                    CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                    DATED      : MARCH 11, 2026
                    P.C.:

1. The present writ petition arises out of a mutation entry which came to be recorded by the revenue authorities in exercise of powers under Section 149 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. By the said proceedings, Mutation Entry No. 7391 was effected in the revenue record. Through this entry the name of respondent No.1 was recorded as a tenant in respect of the agricultural land in dispute. The petitioners have questioned the legality and correctness of this mutation entry. According to them, the entry was made without there being any lawful adjudication of tenancy rights in favour of respondent No.1. It is their contention that a revenue entry cannot create or declare tenancy and that such a right must first be established before the competent authority under the relevant tenancy law.

2. The dispute, therefore, essentially concerns the legality of

12-3757-2009 final.doc

recording the name of respondent No.1 as tenant in the revenue record. Mutation entries in revenue record are ordinarily intended for fiscal purposes. They are made to keep the land record updated with regard to possession or other incidents relating to land revenue administration. However, such entries do not by themselves confer title or create substantive rights. If a person claims a legal status such as that of a tenant, such status must first be determined in accordance with the law governing tenancy. Only after such adjudication can the revenue record be corrected or modified to reflect that legal position. This basic principle forms the foundation of the present challenge.

3. The petitioners initially questioned the mutation entry by filing Appeal No. 3 of 2004 before the competent appellate authority. Upon consideration of the material placed before it, the appellate authority by order dated 6 September 2004 remitted the matter to the Tahsildar for reconsideration. The purpose of such remand was to examine whether respondent No.1 was in fact able to establish any lawful tenancy right in respect of the land.

4. After the remand, the Tahsildar examined the record and considered the claim made by respondent No.1. Upon such examination the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that respondent No.1 had failed to produce any satisfactory material to show that he was cultivating the land as a tenant under the provisions of the relevant tenancy law. The Tahsildar therefore declined to recognize respondent No.1 as a tenant. The matter thereafter travelled to the Sub Divisional Officer who also examined the issue. The Sub Divisional Officer reached the same conclusion. The authority held

12-3757-2009 final.doc

that respondent No.1 could not establish the essential ingredients necessary to claim tenancy over the land in dispute.

5. However, the matter did not end there. The Commissioner, exercising revisional powers under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, interfered with the concurrent findings recorded by the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer. The Commissioner took the view that though respondent No.1 had not succeeded in proving his legal status as a tenant, his possession over the land for a long period indicated acquisition of rights by adverse possession. On that reasoning the Commissioner concluded that the name of respondent No.1 should continue to appear in the revenue record as a tenant. In effect, the Commissioner treated long possession as sufficient basis to maintain the entry recording him as tenant.

6. The approach adopted by the Commissioner cannot be accepted in law. It is a settled position that a claim of tenancy in respect of agricultural land in the State of Maharashtra must be examined and decided under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The said enactment provides a complete mechanism for determination of tenancy rights. Section 70(b) of the Act specifically confers power upon the tenancy authorities to decide whether a person is or was a tenant. The authority designated under the Act alone can grant a declaration regarding tenancy.

7. This statutory scheme shows that questions relating to tenancy are placed exclusively within the jurisdiction of the

12-3757-2009 final.doc

authorities constituted under the Tenancy Act. When the statute clearly entrusts this determination to a particular authority, the same issue cannot be decided by any other forum indirectly.

8. The Act further supports this position through Section 85A. Under this provision, if any issue relating to tenancy arises in a proceeding before a civil court or any other authority, that forum cannot decide the issue on its own. Instead it must refer the question to the competent tenancy authority for determination. The decision given by that authority then binds the court or authority before which the issue arose. Thus the statute creates a clear and exclusive procedure for adjudication of tenancy claims.

9. In the present case respondent No.1 did not obtain any declaration of tenancy from the competent authority under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. There is nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 approached the tenancy authorities seeking recognition of his alleged tenancy rights. In the absence of such adjudication, respondent No.1 directly approached the revenue authorities under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and sought entry of his name in the record as tenant.

10. This course adopted by respondent No.1 was legally impermissible. The revenue authorities functioning under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code are not empowered to declare tenancy rights. Their role is limited to maintaining revenue records for fiscal and administrative purposes. When a person claims the status of a tenant, the revenue authority must first ascertain

12-3757-2009 final.doc

whether such status has been recognised by the competent authority under the tenancy law. Without such declaration the revenue authority cannot independently assume that a person is a tenant.

11. The reasoning adopted by the Commissioner suffers from a serious legal error. The Commissioner himself recorded a finding that respondent No.1 failed to establish his right as tenant. Having recorded such a finding, the Commissioner proceeded to observe that respondent No.1 had acquired possession by adverse possession and therefore his name should be entered as tenant in the revenue record. Such reasoning is internally inconsistent. A person cannot be recorded as a tenant merely because he claims adverse possession. The concept of adverse possession relates to acquisition of ownership against the true owner after fulfilment of legal requirements. It has no direct connection with recognition of tenancy under the Tenancy Act.

12. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Commissioner overlooks the statutory scheme governing determination of tenancy rights. When no declaration of tenancy existed in favour of respondent No.1, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to record his name as tenant merely on the basis of possession. Such an entry cannot be sustained in law.

13. For these reasons the impugned order passed by the Commissioner cannot stand. The entry recording the name of respondent No.1 as tenant in the revenue record lacks legal foundation. The petition therefore deserves to be allowed. Rule is

12-3757-2009 final.doc

made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A).

14. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)