High Court
Legal Reasoning
1903-wp-8221-2024IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 8221 OF 2024Sarika W/o Pandharinath BhosaleAge: 45 years, Occu: AgriculturistR/o. Mouje Chikhli, Tq. Ashti,Dist. Beed.…..PETITIONER(Original Applicant)VERSUS1.Kundanlal S/o Shobhachand BoraAge: Major, Occu: AgriculturistR/o Mouje Pimpla, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.(Deleted as per Court’s Order dated 25.04.2025)2.Bhausaheb S/o Limbaji MukindeAge: Major, Occu: AgriculturistR/o. Mouje Pimpla, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed3.Shivaji S/o Damu MukindeAge: Major, Occu: AgriculturistR/o Mouje Pimpla,Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.…..RESPONDENTS(Original opponents)4.The Tahsildar Tenancy, Ashti,Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.5.The Deputy Collector (L.R.) Beed.…..RESPONDENTS(Authorities)______________________________________________________Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents-StateMr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3______________________________________________________ 2903-wp-8221-2024CORAM:ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATED:13TH AUGUST, 2025ORAL JUDGMENT :-.The petitioner takes exception to order dated29.12.2023, passed by the learned Maharashtra RevenueTribunal, Aurangabad in Revision Petition No.52/B/21/Beedand the order dated 27.08.2021, passed by the DeputyCollector (LR), Beed in Appeal No.2019/BHU.SU.VI.KU.A.PRA/4/10. 2.The dispute between the parties arises out of theprovisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural LandsAct, 1950. The petitioner claims to be duly constitutedattorney of one Suman Narsu Kale. This Suman Narsu Kale isdaughter of one Bhagchand Bhanja Bhosle. It is the case of thepetitioner that Bhagchand Bhanja Bhosle has purchasedportions of two lands bearing survey no.506(346 new)admeasuring 1.82 HR i.e. 4 Acres 22 Gunthas out of total areaof 21 Acres, 37 Gunthas and survey no.505(345 new)admeasuring 2.22HR i.e. 5 Acres, 22 Gunthas out of total areaof 17 Acres 39 Gunthas vide registered sale deed dated 3903-wp-8221-202422.03.1991. It is the case of petitioner that these lands wereoriginally bearing survey nos.287 and 285 respectively. Thecase of the petitioner is that land bearing survey no.285 wasre-numbered as survey no.506 and thereafter as survey no.346and land bearing survey no.287 was re-numbered as 505 andthereafter as 345.3.As against this, the case of respondent nos.2 and 3 isthat they are descendants of one Haba Maruti, who washolding the said lands as also another land bearing surveyno.508 as tenant under the provisions of the HyderabadTenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. According to therespondent nos.2 and 3, survey no.285 was admeasuringaround 40 Acres. Land bearing survey no.285 was divided intotwo parts i.e. survey nos.506 and 505, which weresubsequently re-numbered as 346 and 345 respectively. It istheir contention that the survey no.287 was re-numbered as508.4.The petitioner claims ownership over 4 Acres, 22Gunthas land in survey no.506(346) and 5 Acre, 22 Gunthasland in survey no.505(345) on the basis of the sale deed dated 4903-wp-8221-202422.03.1991 executed in favour of her father by the respondentno.1. Likewise, the respondent nos.2 and 3 claim ownershipon the basis of entire land bearing survey no.506(346) and505(345) on the ground that their predecessor Haba Marutiwas a protected tenant, who acquired ownership over thesame under the provisions HTAL Act.5.The case of petitioner is that the predecessor ofrespondent nos.2 and 3 had surrendered tenancy with respectto the said land. However, the case of respondent nos.2 and 3is that their predecessor had surrendered tenancy with respectto land bearing survey no.287, which was re-numbered assurvey no.506 and not the lands bearing survey nos.506(346)and 505(345). This is the dispute between the parties in sumand substance.6.On the basis of the sale deed dated 22.03.1991, Mr.Bhagchand Bhosle intended to get his name mutated in therevenue record. At this stage, the tenant raised an objection tothe mutation proceedings. Mutation entry in favour of Mr.Bhagchand Bhosle was ordered to be cancelled by theTahsildar, Ashti, vide order dated 29.10.1991. This order 5903-wp-8221-2024dated 29.10.1991 is earlier confirmed by the Sub DivisionalOfficer and thereafter by the Collector, Beed in appealpreferred by Mr. Bhagchand Bhosle. The orders were notcarried further by him. The aspect of mutation thus attainedfinality between the parties.7.Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a proceedingbefore the tenancy Tahsildar, Ashti, bearing fileno.2016/Inam/tenancy/file no/46. The Tahsildar has passedorder dated 24.05.2019 in the said proceeding observing thatthe applicant was entitled to the land purchased by Mr.Bhagchand Bhosle under the aforesaid sale deed dated22.03.1991. This finding is recorded on the ground that thetenancy of survey no.506 was surrendered by the tenant. 8.The respondent nos.2 and 3 challenged the said orderby filing appeal under Section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancyand Agricultural Lands Act, which was allowed by the DeputyCollector (General), Beed vide order dated 27.08.2021. Thepresent petitioner preferred a revision under Section 91 of thesaid act, which is rejected by the learned MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 29.12.2023. 6903-wp-8221-20249.These orders passed in appeal and revision respectivelyare impugned by the petitioner by filing the present petition. 10.At the outset, it needs to be mentioned thatundisputedly, deceased Bhagchand Bhosle has expired andone Suman Narsu Kale is daughter of said Bhagchand Bhosle,who has purchased the land vide sale deed dated 22.03.1991.The petitioner Sarika Pandharinath Bhosle claims to be dulyconstituted attorney for Suman Narsu Kale on the basis ofalleged power of attorney dated 09.01.2017. As per thepetitioner, Suman Narsu Kale is sister of her husband.However, there is no averment in the petition that she isprosecuting the petition as constituted attorney for SumanNarsu Kale. However, the learned Advocate for the petitionerhas shown a copy of power of attorney, executed by SumanNarsu Kale in favour of the petitioner Sarika Pandhari Bhosle.It will be pertinent to mention that the proceeding wasinitiated by the petitioner in her own name by filingapplication before the tenancy Tahsildar. The learnedAdvocate contends that this power of attorney dated09.01.2017 is also filed on record before the learned 7903-wp-8221-2024Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It will be pertinent to statethat the application before the tenancy Tahsildar which is filedon 24.08.2016, is also filed in the name of petitioner-SarikaPandharinath Bhosle. The date of application appears to beprior to the date on which power of attorney is executed bySuman Narsu Kale in favour of the petitioner.11.It must also be mentioned that if the petitioner wasprosecuting the proceeding as constituted attorney of SumanNarsu Kale, the proceeding ought to have been prosecuted inthe name of Suman Narsu Kale with the name of petitioner asduly constituted attorney. However, all throughout theproceeding is prosecuted by the petitioner in her own namewithout even mentioning that she was prosecuting theproceeding in the name of and for on behalf of Suman NarsuKale as per constituted attorney. The power of attorney wasfiled on record for the first time before the RevisionalAuthority i.e. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and that too atthe stage when the matter was closed for final arguments. Inthe present petition also the petitioner does not state that sheis prosecuting the same, for and on behalf of Suman Narsu 8903-wp-8221-2024Kale. The averments in the proceedings indicate that thepetitioner (Sarika) is claiming to be daughter of BhagchandBhosle. The petitioner (Sarika Bhosle) claims that SumanNarsu Kale is sister of her husband (Pandharinath) It isdifficult to comprehend as to why the husband of thepetitioner did not prosecute the proceeding since he wouldobviously be a legal heir of deceased Bhagchand Bhoslealongwith Suman Narsu Kale. In the event, the husband is nomore, the petitioner herself would be legal heir of deceasedBhagchand Bhosle. There appears to be something more thanwhat meets the eye. However, no definite opinion can beformed in this regard. 12.As regards merits of the matter, the learned Advocatefor the petitioner contends that the tenant had surrenderedtenancy with respect to land bearing survey no.287, whichaccording to him was re-numbered as survey no.505 andthereafter as survey no.345. He contends that after thetenancy was surrendered and entry with respect to thesurrender was taken in the Abstract of Protected Tenancies.According to him, the relevant entry regarding surrender of
Legal Reasoning
9903-wp-8221-2024tenancy was scored off. He states that by mis-representing theauthorities it was sought to be contended that the tenancy ofthe predecessor of the respondent nos.2 and 3, continued overland bearing survey no.287. Perusal of the Abstract ofProtected Tenancies demonstrates that survey no.287 was re-numbered as survey no.508. It will be pertinent to mentionthat in the register, there is also a reference to survey no.285,below which new survey no.506 is mentioned. It is alsonecessary to state that the original survey no.285 and 287 arewritten in ink and the new survey nos.506 and 508 arementioned in pencil. The contention of the learned Advocatefor the petitioner is that survey no.287 was re-numbered assurvey no.505. He places reliance on extract of Register ofProtected Tenancies. In this document, which is filed atExh.32 alongwith petition, following survey numbers arementioned:285/506, 287/505 and 287/1 the areas of theselands are mentioned as 40, 5 and 5. While mentioning the area, the unit i.e. Acre or Gunthais not mentioned. The contention of the learned Counsel forthe petitioner is that while the issue of tenancy of the 10903-wp-8221-2024respondent nos.2 and 3 and their predecessor was beingdecided by the authorities, the exact area of tenancy ought tohave been determined. He states that the figures 40 and 5,which are mentioned in the register do not specify the unitand therefore, one cannot make out as to whether the tenancywas with respect to 40 Acres or 40 Gunthas. He next contendsthat the tenancy is not with respect to 40 acres since the totalarea of survey no.285 was only 21 Acres and 37 Gunthas. Itneeds to be mentioned again that according to the learnedAdvocate for the petitioner, survey no.285 and 287 were re-numbered as 506 and 505 respectively and thereafter, thesame were re-numbered as 346 and 345. 13.As against this, this is the contention of the learnedAdvocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 that survey no.285 itselfwas divided into two parts as survey no.505 and 506.According to the learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2and 3, survey no.505 was thereafter re-numbered as surveyno.345 and survey no.506 was re-numbered as 346. Thelearned Counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3 states thatsurvey no.287 was re-numbered as 508 and thereafter 348. 11903-wp-8221-2024The learned Advocate for the respondent nos.2 and 3 statesthat surrender of tenancy was with respect to survey no.287,which was re-numbered as survey no.508 and thereafter,survey no.348. In order to substantiate this contention, hedraws attention to three documents, being Khasara Patraks ofland survey nos.505, 506 and 508, in which old andcorresponding new survey numbers of lands in question arementioned with their areas as under:Old survey no.New survey no.Area50534517 Acres, 39 Gunthas50634621 Acres, 37 Gunthas5083485 Acres, 20 Gunthas14.The entries in Khasara Patraks record area of surveyno.505 (new no.345) and survey no.506 (new no.346) as 17Acres, 39 Gunthas and 21 Acres, 37 Gunthas respectively. Thetotal area of these two survey numbers comes to 39 Acres and36 Gunthas. One Acre comprises of 40 Gunthas, therefore,area of survey no.505 (new no.345) and survey no.506 (newno.346) is almost the same as area of survey no.285, asrecorded in Register of Protected Tenancies. This will indicatethat the tenancy of respondent nos.2 and 3 pertains to 40 12903-wp-8221-2024Acres of land and not 40 Gunthas.15.As per entry in the Abstract of Protected Tenancies, thetotal area of survey no.285 is 40 acres. The area of surveynos.505(345) and 506(346) is 39 Acres and 36 Gunthas asper the Khasara Patraks. Reading the entry in Register ofProtected Tenancies and Khasara Patraks together givescredence to the contention of the learned Advocate for therespondent nos.2 and 3 that 285 was split into survey nos.505and 506, which was subsequently re-numbered as 345 and346.16.It will be pertinent to mention that in the Register ofTenancies, there is an entry which pertains to surrender oftenancy with respect to survey no.287 and the correspondingnew number of this survey number is mentioned as 508. Thearea of survey no.287 (new no.508) is mentioned as 5.However, as stated above, the unit of area is not mentioned.This figure 5 is read alongwith the Khasara Patrak of surveyno.508 at record, page 94 will indicate that the area ismentioned as 5 Acres and 20 Gunthas. The Khasara Patrak ofsurvey no.508 also has the following endorsement:The protected tenant has left the field on his own
Decision
13903-wp-8221-2024accord”17.This endorsement on the Khasra Patrak corroborateswith the entry in the record of protected tenancies. Thecontention of respondent nos.2 and 3 that the surrender waswith respect to survey no.508, which was subsequently re-numbered as survey no.348 is therefore fortified by the factthat the entry of surrender of tenancy with respect to 287/508finds corroboration with the entry in the Khasra Patrak.18.In view of the above, I find no reason to take a differentview of the matter than the one which is taken by the learnedCollector and Maharashtra Land Revenue in the impugnedorders. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed with no orders asto cost.19.At this stage, the learned Advocate for respondent nos.2and 3 states that in view of the interim orders that orderpassed by the revenue authorities have altered the mutationentries. The mutation entries be recorded in the light ofpresent judgment. 20.Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )Rushikesh/2025