The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07/01/2011, passed by the Sub-divisional officer, and the order dated 18/01/2014, passed by Maharashtra revenue tribunal, Mumbai. The Court observed that the person in possession of the land has to be “lawfully cultivating” the land to come within the ambit of the legal presumption.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner is the tenant. Private Respondents Nos.2 to 5 are the Original landlords. Respondent Nos.6 to 11 are subsequent purchasers of the subject land from Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. The Petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject land on tillers day i.e., 01.04.1957. The Petitioner claims that his name is appearing in the Revenue Record i.e., 7/12 extract on tillers day in respect of the subject land. The Petitioner, hence, approached the Tehsildar & ALT for seeking a declaration as the lawful tenant of Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 under Section 70 B of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
By order dated 31.08.2001, the application of the Petitioner under Section 70B of the said Act was dismissed and it was held that he was not a tenant of the subject land. On remand, by order dated 31.01.2007, Tehsildar confirmed the earlier order. Once again, a challenge was maintained before the SDO in Tenancy Appeal. On 07.01.2011, the SDO dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved, a Revision Application was filed by the petitioner before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the Petitioner has been in possession and cultivating the subject land prior to 01.04.1957. He submitted that at no point in time did the Respondents raise any objection in respect of the Petitioner’s right and possession of the portion of the subject land and therefore any such claim at this stage would stand waived. The Petitioner was a tenant and acquired tenancy rights from the original owners in respect of the subject land and hence the impugned orders be set aside.
Further, the Counsel argued that there is a legal presumption under Section 4 of the said Act that a person cultivating the said land on tillers day shall be deemed to be a tenant of that land.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the respondent argued that there is a categorical finding that possession and occupation of the subject land (including that of the Petitioners) on tillers day i.e., 01.04.1957 is not proved and therefore the claim of adverse possession cannot be allowed, and adjudicated in favour of the Petitioner at this stage which is a complete afterthought.
Observations of the Court
The Court observed that the argument of the petitioner ― that due to his predecessor-in-title cultivating the subject land/portion of the subject land on tillers day, a legal presumption arises that he shall be a tenant under the said Act ― is not acceptable because the person in possession of the land has to be “lawfully cultivating” the said land to come within the ambit of the said legal presumption under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In the present case, the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioner could not show any nexus with the subject land or portion of the subject land on tillers day.
Further, the Court remarked that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant established between the parties based on evidence on record.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, dismissing the petition, held that the impugned order 18.01.2014 passed by MRT as also the judgment and order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the SDO and the Judgment dated 31.01.2007 passed by the learned Tehsildar and ALT call for no interference and are sustained.
Case Title: Gopal Ganpat Patil vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO. 3528 OF 2015
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle
Advocate for the Respondents: Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar
Read Judgment ;
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments