High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 2470 / 2025 + IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2471 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2472 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2473 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners
Legal Reasoning
2 WP / 2470 / 2025 + VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2474 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2475 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. RespondentsWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2476 OF 2025Late Poullad Manik Patildeceased through Legal RepresentativesSunita Bhagwan Patil and others.. Petitioners VersusThe State of Maharashtra throughPrincipal Secretary, Revenue and ForestDepartment, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others.. Respondents...Advocate for petitioners in all WPs : Mr. S.B. Yawalkar h/f. Mr. Ankush N. NagargojeAGP for the respondent – State : Mr. S.R. Wakale... 3 WP / 2470 / 2025 + CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, JJ.DATE : 25 FEBRUARY 2025ORDER (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :Heard learned advocate for the petitioners in all thesepetitions, who are the same individuals claiming similar reliefs againstthe contesting respondents with following prayers:- (B) Direct the tenancy authorities under the Maharashtra Tenancyand Agricultural Act, 1948 to recall all the orders passed withrespect to writ land and to declare them as null and void.(C) The writ land may be declared as free from tenancy andrespondents are encroachers on the writ lands by issuingappropriate writ/order for directions.(D) The order dated 01.04.1963 passed in Tenancy Case No.736and the certificate issued u/s 32-M to the respondents bedeclared as null and void.2.The learned advocate for the petitioners Mr. Yawalkarh/f. Mr. A.N. Nagargoje submits that one Manik Waman Patil, ancestorof the petitioners was owner of the agriculture land in question situateat Nimbhora, Tq. Amalner, District - Jalgaon. Manik died on13.03.1936 and the name of his son Poullad was recorded in therevenue record and being a minor at the relevant time, even the nameof his mother - Parvatabai was recorded as his guardian. Petitionersare the legal heirs of Poullad. 4 WP / 2470 / 2025 + 3.Mr. Yawalkar would submit that on an application filed byParvatabai with the Court of learned District Judge, Dhule. Registrar ofDistrict Court, Dhule was appointed as guardian of the writ propertiesfor and on behalf of Poullad. Accordingly, on the application filed byRegistrar of the District Court, Dhule, mutation was effected and theRegistrar held the possession. 4.Mr. Yawalkar would submit that as a guardian andcaretaker of the writ properties, the Registrar granted the writ lands tothe ancestors of the contesting respondents for cultivation in the year1945-46. Accordingly, the name of the ancestors of respondents weremutated in the revenue record. Since Poullad attained majority on03.12.1952, the Registrar of the District Court was discharged. 5.Mr. Yawalkar would then submit that the ancestors of thecontesting respondents preferred proceedings under section 32-G ofthe Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act)in the year 1963. The authority under the Tenancy Act fixed the priceand granted 32-M certificate on 01.04.1963. Rukhmabai with the helpof her nephew GPA Jijabrao Patil collected the documents andpreferred RTS Appeals together with delay condonation applications inthe year 2013. However, the Sub Divisional Officer, Amalner rejectedthose applications in the year 2014. It was challenged in Appeal beforethe Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad but that was 5 WP / 2470 / 2025 + dismissed. The matter was carried to the High Court which dismissedthe petition of the writ petitioners and the order has been confirmed bythe Supreme Court by dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferredby the petitioners. 6.Mr. Yawalkar would submit that since Poullad was minor,all the proceedings before the authorities under the Tenancy Act arenull and void. The contesting respondents had fraudulently managedto obtain the orders. He would submit that by virtue of section 32-F ofthe Tenancy Act, the tillar’s day get extended in respect of the landlordwho is a minor and that would axiomatically extend the period for suchminor landlord, to take steps for termination of the tenancy. All theseaspects needed to be considered but have been dismissed thechallenge put up by the petitioners on the ground of limitation. 7.We have considered the submissions of the learnedadvocate and perused the papers. 8.Without indulging into any other scrutiny regarding the rightbeing claimed by the petitioners, it is suffice to note that admittedly, thechallenge put up by Parvatabai to 32-M certificate issued to thecontesting respondents, was turned down by the tenancy authoritiesand the decisions have been confirmed up to the Supreme Court. 6 WP / 2470 / 2025 + 9.For this very reason, in our considered view, the extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, cannot be invoked and exercised much less by undertaking anyenquiry into the alleged rights of the petitioners. Whatever rights thepetitioners had, could have been agitated before the tenancyauthorities under the Tenancy Act. Exercising powers of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India, circumventing thedecision of the tenancy authorities, would not be permissible when therival claims / rights have reached finality. Irrespective of the groundsbeing raised in these petitions, there will have to be finality to thedecision of the tenancy authorities in the proceedings under theTenancy Act. 10.In our considered view, in the peculiar facts andcircumstances of the case, the petitions are liable to be dismissed. 11.The petitions are dismissed. [ PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/