Writ Petition No. 10513 of 2022 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
2025:BHC-AUG:23568 110513.2022WP+.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 10513 OF 20221.Laxman Ramji Shelke (Deceased) Through L.Rs. A.Bhau Laxman Shelke Age : 77 years, Occ : Agriculture, Through G.P.A. holderNitin S/o Bhaurao Shelke Age : 46 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..PETITIONERVERSUS1.Murlidhar Baburao Shelke Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar.2.Shridhar Narayan Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. A)Sanjay Shridhar Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agri., R/o Priti Sanam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. B)Smt. Asawari Ramesh Dekhne Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. C)Snehalata Shridhar Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. 210513.2022WP+.odtD)Amey Shridhar Joshi Age : Major, Occ : Service, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune Tq. & Dist. Pune. 3.Mukund Digambar Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agri., R/o A-802, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Mulund (East), Mumbai - 400 081. 4.Ramabai Vishnu Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar5.Amit Vijay Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6.Vishwas Vishnu Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sagamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7.Ranjana Babanrao PundeAge : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Chande, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 8.Prabhakar Trimbak Kulkarni(Deceased), Through L.Rs. A.Mahesh Prabhakar Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agri., R/o 4, Swanam Apartment, Chintamani Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Nashik. 9.Sudhakar Trimbak Kulkarni (Deceased) Through L.Rs. 310513.2022WP+.odtA.Vaibhav Sudhakar Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. 9A-1.Suvarna Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 50 years, Occ : Service, 9A-2.Smruddhi Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 26 years, Occ : Service, 9A-3.Vaishnavi Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 22 years, Occ : Service, All L.Rs. are resident of Flat No.5, Plot No.4, Suyash Corner, Malhar Chowk, success vihar, Opposite to Jawahar Nagar, Police Station, Aurangabad, Maharashtra. 10.Waman Narayan KulkarniAge : Major, Occ : Agri., R/o Narayanbag, Bhivandi Road, Kalyan, Tq. & Dist. Thane(Respondent No.10 deleted as per Court's order dated 14.11.2022). 11.Smt. Rakhamabai Vishnu Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agri., R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..RESPONDENTSWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 11968 OF 20221.Prabhakar Trimbak Kulkarni(Died), Through L.Rs. 1-A.Mahesh Prabhakar Kulkarni Age : 46 years, Occ : Business, R/o 4, Swanam Apartment, Chintamani Colony, Rajiv Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Nashik.
Legal Reasoning
410513.2022WP+.odt2.Sudhakar Trimbak Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. 2-A.Vaibhav Sudhakar Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. 2-A-1.Smt. Suvarna Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 50 years, Occ : Household, 2-A-2.Smruddhi Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 26 years, Occ : Service, 2-A-3.Vaishnavi Vaibhav Kulkarni Age : 22 years, Occ : Student, Applicant Nos.2-A-1 to 2-A-3 are R/o Flat No.5, Plot No.4, Suyash Corner, Malhar Chowk, Aurangabad 3.Digambar Yeshwant Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. 3-A.Mukund Digambar Kulkarni Age : 66 years, Occ : Business, R/o A-802, Sai Regency, Bhoir Nagar, Mulund (East), Mumbai - 400 081. 4.Vishwas Vishnu Kulkarni Age : 56 years, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ..PETITIONERSVERSUS1. Laxman Ramji Shelke (Died) Through L.Rs. Bhau Laxman Shelke Age : 77 years, Occ : Agriculture, Through G.P.A. holderNitin S/o Bhaurao Shelke Age : 46 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 510513.2022WP+.odt2.Shridhar Narayan Kulkarni (Died) Through L.Rs. 2-A)Sanjay Shridhar Kulkarni (Died) 2-B)Smt. Asawari Ramesh Dekhne Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. 2-C)Snehalata Shridhar Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune, Tq. & Dist. Pune. 2-D)Amay Shridhar Joshi Age : Major, Occ : Service, R/o Priti Sangam, 1321, Kasba Peth, Pune Tq. & Dist. Pune. 3.Waman Narayan Kulkarni (Died) Through his L.Rs. Vasumatibai Waman Kulkarni (Died Issueless) (The petitioners and respondent nos.2, 5 and 6 are the only L.Rs. which is already on record) 4.Ramabai Vishnu Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Household, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar5.Vijay Vishnu Kulkarni (Died) Through his L.Rs. 610513.2022WP+.odtAmit Vijay Kulkarni Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 6.Ranjana Babanrao PundeAge : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Chande, Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. 7.Murlidhar Baburao Shelke Age : Major, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bota, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar...RESPONDENTS…Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.11968/2022Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Yash A. Jadhav i/b Mr. S.R. Sapkal, Advocate for petitioners in WP No.10513/2022 Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.7 in WP No.11968/2022Mr.S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent no.1 in WP No.10513/2022Mr. D.G. Nagode, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3, 6, 8(A), 9/A/1 to 9/A/3 in WP No.10513/2022. …CORAM:ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.RESERVED ON :23rd JUNE, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:3rd SEPTEMBER, 2025JUDGMENT :In the body of the judgment, the status of partiesas petitioner and respondents is mentioned as per cause titleof Writ Petition No.10513/2022. 710513.2022WP+.odt2.The controversy in the present petitions pertainsto tenancy over agricultural lands situated at village Bota,Tq.Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar, the details whereof are asunder :- Sr.No.Old NumberNewNumberArea1.339/2 to 5 186 19R2.346/5A18109R 3.345/322112R4.341/23/3/51972H 14R potkharaba 6 R 5.340/1 to 619620R6.340/12 to 1819129R7.339/12 & 1318222R8.339/9 and 10 18413R9.338/8C/12/1421309R10.343/620356R 3.The aforesaid lands are hereinafter referred to as“the suit lands”. One Shridhar Narayan Kulkarni, the pre-decessor of respondent nos.2 to 11 was admittedly owner ofthe suit lands. The name of respondent no.1 was recorded astenant of the suit lands. Respondent No.1 had filed anapplication before the Avval Karkun, Sangamner, stating thathe was surrendering the tenancy of the suit lands since he hadother agricultural lands and it was not possible and 810513.2022WP+.odtconvenient for him to cultivate the suit lands. The saidapplication was filed on 28.07.1956. Respondent No.1recorded his deposition before the Avval Karkun on08.08.1956 reiterating the averments made in the applicationfor surrender and confirmed that he was surrendering thetenancy over the suit lands. It will be pertinent to mentionthat as per the deposition of respondent no.1, he was 18 yearsold at the relevant time. 4.The Avval Karkun passed order dated 08.08.1956on the said application, recording that respondentno.1/applicant had filed the proceeding in order to surrenderhis tenancy rights over suit lands and that during the course ofhis deposition, he has stated that he was surrendering thetenancy rights since he was unable to cultivate the same. TheAvval Karkun recorded his satisfaction that the surrender wasvoluntary and accordingly, directed deletion of name ofrespondent no.1 from record of rights. The record disclosesthat vide mutation entry no.2877, the name of respondentno.1 was deleted from the record of rights in view of the saidorder dated 08.08.1956 passed by the Avval Karkun. 910513.2022WP+.odt5.Thereafter, an entry is recorded on 15.02.1962vide Mutation Entry No.3449 stating that since respondentno.1 had surrendered his tenancy rights over the suit lands,question of issuance of sale certificate in his favour under theMaharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(hereinafter referred to as "the M.T.A.L. Act") does not arise.The record also indicates that Mutation Entry No.2974 wasrecorded on 21.01.1958 mentioning that respondent no.1 hadcultivated the suit lands as tenant of the respondent/landlord(Kulkarnis) in the year 1957-58 and, therefore, his name wasrequired to be recorded as tenant. The present petitioner is afamily member of respondent no.1. 6.The petitioner and respondent no.1 belong todifferent branches in the same family. The petitioner had filedan application dated 06.01.1964 before Avval Karkun,Sangamner, inter alia, contending that suit lands were jointlycultivated by him and respondent no.1 for years together andthat although the name of respondent no.1 was recordedalone as a tenant, as a matter of fact, the tenancy rights werevested with the entire joint family in which the petitioner andrespondent no.1 had half share each. The Avval Karkun 1010513.2022WP+.odtallowed the said application vide order dated 20.06.1964.Perusal of the order will demonstrate that before allowing theapplication vide order dated 20.06.1964, the Avval Karkunhad recorded statements of the petitioner, respondent no.1and the land owner. 7.Respondent No.10 - landlord (Waman NarayanKulkarni) had filed suit for recovery of possession of some ofthe suit lands owned by him against the petitioner andrespondent no.1, being Regular Civil Suit No.332/1975.Likewise, respondent no.2 - landlord (Shridhar) had also filedsimilar suit with respect to suit lands owned by him, beingRegular Civil Suit No.333/1975. In both these suits thecontention of the plaintiffs (respondent nos.2 and 10) wasthat the suit lands were let to deceased Baburao, father ofrespondent no.1 (Murlidhar) as a tenant in the year 1950 andthat after the demise of his father-Baburao, respondent no.1continued to cultivate the lands as tenant. It is then contendedthat respondent no.1 had surrendered the tenancy withrespect to the suit lands by filing proceeding bearing TenancyCase No.115/1956, which was allowed vide order dated08.08.1956 passed by the Avval Karkun, Sangamner. It was 1110513.2022WP+.odtfurther contended that the petitioner, who was arrayed asdefendant no.2 in the said suit had no concern whatsoeverwith the suit lands although he was claiming the suitproperties to be properties of the Joint Hindu Family held intenancy rights. Perusal of the judgments in the said suits willdemonstrate that the petitioner had filed written statements inthe said suits. Respondent No.1 had filed a pursis adopting thewritten statements filed by the petitioner as his writtenstatements. Perusal of the judgments will indicate that it wasstated in the written statements that the petitioner andrespondent no.1 were members of Joint Hindu Family andthat the suit lands were under cultivation of their forefathersas tenants and in the partition of Hindu Family, suit propertiesfell to the share of branch of petitioner (defendant no.1 in thesaid suit). It was further stated in the written statements thatfrom the date on which the lands fell to the share of branch ofpetitioner, he had become tenant of the suit lands and that theplaintiffs had no right to terminate the tenancy of thepetitioner (defendant no.1). It was also stated that allegedsurrender of tenancy by respondent no.1 (defendant no.2 insaid suit) was not binding on the petitioner (defendant no.1 inthe said suit). 1210513.2022WP+.odt8.The said suits came to be decreed vide judgmentand decree dated 09.06.1999. The decree of possession waspassed against the petitioner and respondent no.1 directingthem to deliver possession of the suit lands to the plaintiffs(respondent nos.2 and 10 herein). The learned Civil Court hadhowever directed that the decree for possession would takeeffect subject to adjudication of tenancy disputes between theparties which was pending while the suit was decided. It willalso be pertinent to state that the learned Civil Court hasrecorded a finding that the petitioner had failed tosubstantiate his contention of occupying the suit lands astenant. The present petitioner preferred two separate appealschallenging the said judgments and decrees passed by thelearned Civil Court. Both these appeals, registered as RegularCivil Appeal No.839/2000 and 840/2000 came to bedismissed vide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2006 passedby the learned Additional District Judge, Sangamner. It will bepertinent to mention that respondent no.1 did not challengethe decree for possession. The petitioner has thereafter filedSecond Appeal No.911/2006 and Second AppealNo.912/2006 against the said concurrent decrees for 1310513.2022WP+.odtpossession. Both these second appeals are admitted by thisCourt, vide orders dated 23.08.2010 and 19.10.2010 and arepending for adjudication. This Court has also granted stay toexecution of the decree for possession on the condition thatthe petitioner shall not alienate or create third party interestover the suit lands. 9.It will be pertinent to state that respondent no.1and the petitioner had jointly filed a proceeding under Section32G of the M.T.A.L. Act before the Tahsildar, Sangamnerseeking issuance of sale certificate. The said application whichwas filed on 18.11.1975 came to be rejected vide order dated05.06.1978. The Tahsildar has placed reliance on order dated14.10.1974 passed on application filed by petitioner in aproceeding under Section 33C of the M.T.A.L. Act for additionof his name as party. The said application was rejected holdingthat there was no evidence to establish claim of tenancy ofpetitioner. As regards respondent no.1, the application wasrejected on the ground that earlier proceeding under Section32G was already closed vide order dated 10.10.1962. Perusalof the order dated 14.10.1974 will indicate that the learnedAdditional Tahsildar has observed that as per recor d as on 1410513.2022WP+.odt01.04.1962, which is the relevant date for deciding anapplication under Section 33C, respondent no.1 alone wascultivating the suit lands and that the petitioner, who soughtinclusion of his name in the proceeding had no concern withthe said lands as per the record, and therefore, his name couldnot be included in the proceeding. Accordingly, application forinclusion of the name filed by the petitioner in the saidproceeding was rejected by the learned Additional Tahsildar. 10.The petitioner filed an appeal challenging theorder dated 02.06.1978 passed by the Additional Tahsildarrejecting the application for issuance of sale certificate. Thesaid Appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 31.03.1980.It will be pertinent to mention that there was typographicalerror in mentioning the name of the petitioner. Instead ofmentioning the name of petitioner "Laxman Ramji Shinde",name is mentioned as "Murlidhar Ramji Shinde". It isnecessary to state that respondent no.1 did not file appealchallenging the order dated 02.06.1978. 11.The petitioner thereafter filed revision before the 1510513.2022WP+.odtMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal challenging the order dated02.06.1978 passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar, which was inturn confirmed by the Deputy Collector, vide order dated31.03.1980. The said revision was allowed by the learnedMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal, vide judgment and orderdated 28.02.1985. The orders dated 02.06.1978 and31.03.1980 passed by the learned Tenancy Tahsildar andDeputy Collector were quashed and the matter was remandedto the learned Additional Tahsildar to decide Section 32Gapplication afresh by giving opportunity of hearing the parties.The issue of jointness of tenancy of the petitioner andrespondent no.1 was also directed to be decided. 12.The learned Tenancy Tahsildar took up the casefor fresh consideration in view of the aforesaid order ofremand passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as "MRT"). After remand of the matter,the learned Tahsildar decided the same vide order dated11.03.1999 rejecting the application on the ground thatrespondent no.1 had surrendered the tenancy on 08.08.1956,as held by the Avval Karkun in the proceeding for surrenderfiled by respondent no.1. The present petitioner again filed 1610513.2022WP+.odtAppeal challenging the said order dated 11.03.1999. The saidAppeal was allowed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide orderdated 24.04.2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer quashed and setaside the order dated 11.03.1999 passed by the TenancyTahsildar and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. 13.After remand of the matter, the learned TenancyTahsildar decided the application vide order dated28.03.2018. The application filed by the petitioner wasallowed. The learned Tenancy Tahsildar determined thepurchase price of the suit lands at Rs.34,588/- and directedthe petitioner to deposit the said amount within a period ofthree months. Further directions were issued to issue salecertificate in favour of the petitioner under Section 32M of theM.T.A.L. Act. It will be pertinent to state that the said order ispassed in favour of the petitioner alone. 14.Respondents - land owners challenged the saidorder dated 28.03.2018 passed by the learned TenancyTahsildar by filing an Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer,being Tenancy Appeal No.142/2018. The said Appeal came tobe dismissed vide order dated 19.01.2019. 1710513.2022WP+.odt15.It will be necessary to state that in this appeal,respondent no.1 raised a contention that the petitioner wasnot a tenant of the suit lands and that the tenancy rights arevested with him. He questioned the findings recorded by theTenancy Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner and decision toissue sale certificate in the name of the petitioner alone. TheSub-Divisional Officer has held that surrender of tenancy inthe year 1956 was never acted upon. He has also recorded afinding that the name of respondent no.1 in the said appeali.e. present petitioner was also recorded in the revenue recordas tenant. The Sub-Divisional Officer has held that on TillersDay, the father of the petitioner was in possession of the suitlands as tenant. As regards the objection raised by respondentno.1, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer has recorded that inthe earlier round of litigation findings were recorded againstrespondent no.1, which did not challenge. It is held that ifrespondent no.1 was aggrieved by any findings or orderpassed earlier, he ought to have challenge the same. It isobserved that respondent no.1 had surrendered his tenancy inTenancy Case No.115/1956 and order dated 08.08.1956accepting the surrender was passed by the CompetentAuthority. It is also observed that pursuant to the said order 1810513.2022WP+.odtrelevant entries of mutation were also recorded deleting thename of respondent no.1. In view of such findings, the orderdated 28.03.2018 passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar directingthe issuance of sale certificate in the name of petitioner alonewas upheld and the Appeal was dismissed. 16.Being aggrieved by the said order, respondentno.1 preferred a Revision bearing Case No.41/B/2019/AN.The Revision Application came to be rejected on the groundthat respondent no.1 had not filed Appeal challenging theorder dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar, andtherefore, Revision at his behest in order to challenge orderdated 19.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer inAppeal preferred by landlord was not maintainable. Thelearned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has also made certainobservations with respect to conduct of respondent no.1 in notchallenging decrees passed in the suits for possession filed bythe landlords. 17.It will be pertinent to mention that the landlordshad also preferred a Revision bearing Case No.34/B/2019/AN 1910513.2022WP+.odtchallenging the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the TenancyTahsildar directing issuance of sale certificate in favour of thepetitioner and the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissing the Appeal preferred by thelandlords. While Revision Application was pending the presentpetitioner and respondent/landlord entered into out of Courtsettlement. The land in question was acquired by NationalHighways Authority. Petitioner and respondent/landlordentered into settlement for apportionment of amount ofcompensation awarded. The parties filed joint compromisepursis dated 28.01.2020 before the Maharashtra RevenueTribunal. An application for deletion of name of respondentno.1 was also filed on 28.01.2020. The learned Tribunalallowed the application for deletion of name of respondentno.1 and disposed of the Revision in terms of compromisearrived at between the petitioner and respondent/landlord. 18.Respondent No.1 thereafter preferred a petitionbefore this Court, being Writ Petition No.3401/2020challenging the order dated 23.01.2020 passed by the learnedMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision CaseNo.41/B/2019/AN preferred by him, which was dismissed as
Decision
2010513.2022WP+.odtnot maintainable vide order dated 23.01.2020. This Court hasdisposed of the said petition vide order dated 28.02.2020 withliberty to respondent no.1 to avail of statutory remedy inaccordance with law. While disposing of the petition, it isobserved that since the Revision was dismissed as notmaintainable, the observations on merits of the matter madeby the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal should beignored while deciding the matter afresh. 19.Respondent No.1 had also preferred a Petition,being Writ Petition No.3534/2020, challenging the orderdated 28.01.2020 passed by the Maharashtra RevenueTribunal permitting deletion of name of respondent no.1 inRevision Case No.34/B/2019/AN and disposing of the same interms of the compromise arrived between the petitioner andrespondent/landlord. The said petition is admitted vide orderdated 04.03.2020, however, this Court has refused to grantany interim relief to respondent no.1 (petitioner in the saidpetition). 20.In this backdrop, respondent no.1 preferred 2110513.2022WP+.odtTenancy Appeal No.66/2020 before the Sub-Divisional Officerin order to challenge the order dated 28.03.2018 passed bythe Tenancy Tahsildar directing issuance of sale certificate infavour of the present petitioner. Since there was delay, anapplication for condonation of delay was also filed. Theapplication for condonation of delay was allowed. The saidAppeal came to be allowed vide order dated 20.07.2021. Theorder dated 28.03.2018 came to be quashed. It is held thatrespondent no.1 alone is the tenant of the properties inquestion and accordingly, the directions were issued to theTenancy Tahsildar to calculate appropriate sale considerationfrom him and to issue sale certificate under Section 32M ofthe M.T.A.L. Act in his favour. While allowing the appeal, thelearned Sub-Divisional Officer has observed that as on01.04.1957, name of respondent no.1 and prior to that nameof his father alone were reflected in the revenue record astenants. The Sub-Divisional Officer has observed that thealleged surrender of tenancy on 08.08.1956 is not inaccordance with law and further that the said surrender wasnever acted upon since possession was never delivered. It isheld that the present petitioner or his predecessors were neverin occupation of the suit lands as tenants. 2210513.2022WP+.odt21.The present petitioner and respondents/landlords(petitioners in Writ Petition No.11968/2024) thereafterpreferred two separate Revision Applications bearing CaseNos.44/B/2021/AN and 47/B/2021/AN respectively,challenging the order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.66/2020. The learnedMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal has dismissed the said RevisionApplications vide common judgment dated 26.08.2022. Thelearned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed that thesurrender of tenancy on 08.08.1956 is not a valid surrendersince the order accepting surrender is passed by a AvvalKarkun and not by the Mamlatdar. It is further observed thatdespite the order of surrender dated 08.08.1956, the name ofrespondent no.1 appeared in the revenue records till the year1981-82. On this basis, it is held that the surrender was neveracted upon. The learned Tribunal has held that earlier nameof Babu Bhagwanta Shelke, the father of respondent no.1 wasrecorded as protected tenant and after his demise on07.04.1952, name of respondent no.1 was recorded as tenant,being legal heirs of the original tenant deceased Babu. Thelearned Tribunal has also observed that after the order dated 2310513.2022WP+.odt08.08.1956 regarding surrender of tenancy was passed, thelandlord did not file any application for delivery of possession,and therefore, the surrender was not valid and effective onthis ground as well. As regards the present petitioner, it isobserved that the entries in the record did not indicatepossession of the petitioner or his predecessors as on01.04.1957 i.e. the Tillers Day. It is also observed that there isno pleading that petitioner and respondent no.1 are familymembers. The learned Tribunal has further held that thelandlord had all the while accepted respondent no.1 alone asa tenant. In view of the aforesaid findings, the learnedMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the order dated20.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in TenancyAppeal No.66/2020 and has dismissed the RevisionApplications accordingly. The present petitions are filedchallenging the said orders dated 20.07.2021 passed by theSub-Divisional Officer and dated 26.08.2022 passed by thelearned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 22.Mr. V.D. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate for thepetitioner in Writ Petition No.10513/2022 contends that theAppeal preferred by respondent no.1 was not maintainable. 2410513.2022WP+.odtHe draws attention to the order dated 28.03.2018 passed bythe Tenancy Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner and bydrawing attention to the said order, learned Senior Advocatestates that a positive finding was recorded by the TenancyTahsildar that the petitioner was holding the suit lands astenant and accordingly, specific order for issuing salecertificate in favour of the petitioner was passed. Mr. Sapkalcontends that although, the landlord had filed Appealchallenging the said order, respondent no.1 who was alsoparty to the said proceeding did not file any Appeal. Hecontends that respondent no.1 had accepted the said order.The learned Senior Advocate further contends that therespondent/landlord had filed Appeal challenging the orderdated 28.03.2018 and the said Appeal was dismissed by theSub-Divisional Officer on 19.01.2019. The learned SeniorAdvocate contends that the Sub-Divisional Officer hasconfirmed the order directing issuance of sale certificate infavour of the petitioner alone. Drawing attention to the saidorder, it is contended that respondent no.1 had raisedcontention with respect to merits of this case in Appeal filedby the respondent/landlord, however, the Appellate Authoritymaintained the order for issuance of sale certificate in the 2510513.2022WP+.odtname of the petitioner alone. The learned Senior Advocatefurther contends that this order was further challenged by therespondent/landlord by filing revision, which came to bedisposed of by way of compromise. The learned SeniorAdvocate further contends that the order dated 28.03.2018has merged with the appellate order dated 19.01.2019 passedby the Sub-Divisional Officer. The contention of the learnedSenior Advocate is that after the order dated 28.03.2018 hadmerged with the appellate order dated 19.01.2019,respondent no.1 filed Appeal challenging the said order dated28.03.2018 before the same appellate authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer. He contends that the Sub-Divisional Officerhas erred in setting aside the order dated 28.03.2018 ignoringthe fact that the said order had merged with appellate orderdated 19.01.2019 passed by the same appellate authority i.e.the Sub-Divisional Officer. In view of the above, threecontentions are raised by the learned Senior Advocate, (i) theorder dated 28.03.2018 did not exist in law since it hadmerged with the subsequent order dated 19.01.2019; (ii) theSub-Divisional Officer could not have passed the order forissuance of sale certificate in favour of respondent no.1 inview of earlier order passed by the same authority directing 2610513.2022WP+.odtissuance of sale certificate in favour of the petitioner and(iii) Appeal preferred by respondent no.1 was liable to bedismissed as the same was barred by principle of resjudicata.It is also contended that the appeal was barred by limitationand was liable to be dismissed as such. He contends thatrespondent no.1 had not even file an application forcondonation of delay and in the absence of any application ororder condoning the delay, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Office is liable to be quashed as the Sub-DivisionalOfficer, acting as appellate authority, could have invokejurisdiction to entertain the appeal on merits only aftercondoning the delay. 23.At the outset, Mr. Jadhavar points out to orderpassed on application for condonation of delay by the learnedSub-Divisional Officer, copy whereof is filed on record withreply affidavit. As regards merits, Mr. Jadhavar, learnedAdvocate for the respondent contends that the order dated08.08.1956, which is foundation of the case of the petitioner,is nullity in the eyes of law. He contends that surrender oftenancy is complete only upon possession of the tenantedproperty being delivered to the landlord. It is his contention 2710513.2022WP+.odtthat the record clearly reveals that possession of the suit landswas never delivered, and therefore, the alleged surrender hadnever taken effect. He further contends that the order ofsurrender is not passed by following mandatory provisions ofTenancy Act. He contends that the Avval Karkun did notfollow the prescribed procedure as per Section 15 of the Act. Itis contended that a surrender of tenancy, in order to be validmust be in writing; it must be verified by Mamlatdar;Mamlatdar must satisfied that the surrender is voluntary andconsequences of such surrender are understood by the tenantand finally the Mamlatdar must endorse his satisfaction withrespect to the aforesaid on the document of surrender. Heargues that although the order dated 08.08.1956 records thatthe surrender is voluntary, it does not record that theconsequences of surrender were understood by the tenant.The objection of Mr. Jadhavar is that the order is passed byAvval Karkun, who is not a Mamlatdar. He, therefore,contends that the alleged surrender is void, ab-initio andnon est. He further contends that surrender of tenancy isnever complete unless it is coupled with possession. It is hiscontention that the landlord never applied for resumption ofpossession and as such the tenancy continued. Another 2810513.2022WP+.odtcontention is that foundation of the case of the petitioner isthat he was a joint tenant of the land with respondent no.1,and therefore, there is absolutely no question of issuance ofsale certificate in favour of petitioner alone. It must be statedthat the said contention is raised in the alternative, withoutprejudice to the main contention that respondent no.1 alone isthe tenant of subject properties. As regards the issue ofresjudicata, contention of the learned Advocate is that theearlier orders are with respect to the dispute between thelandlord and the tenant and the issue in the earlier round oflitigation was whether the tenancy is surrendered or not. Hecontends that the issue as to whether petitioner or respondentno.1 was the tenant or that they were joint tenants did not fallfor consideration and as such, the issue as regards whoamongst the petitioner or the respondent no.1 is the tenantwas not directly and substantially in issue in the earlier roundof litigation. The learned advocate therefore, contends thatthe contention with respect to resjudicata raised by thelearned Senior Advocate for the petitioner needs to berejected. 24.In view of the arguments made above, the issues 2910513.2022WP+.odtthat are fall for consideration in the present petitions, are asunder :- (i)What is the effect of order dated 08.08.1956 passed byAvval Karkun recording surrender of tenancy ? (ii)Whether, petitioner and respondent no.1 were jointtenants of the properties in question ?, Whether, respondentno.1 alone was the tenant of the suit lands ?, whether the suitlands were allotted to the branch of petitioner in partitionbetween branches of petitioner and respondent no.1 ? (iii)Whether, order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer allowing the appeal preferred by respondentno.1 whereby the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by theTenancy Tahsildar for issuance of sale certificate of petitionerbarred by resjudicata in view of the earlier order dated19.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissingthe appeal preferred by respondent/ landlord challengingorder dated 28.03.2018 ? (iv)Whether, the order dated 28.03.2018 passed by theTenancy Tahsildar directing issuance of sale certificate infavour of the petitioner to the exclusion of respondent no.1merged with order dated 19.01.2020 passed by the Sub- 3010513.2022WP+.odtDivisional Officer in appeal preferred by landlord and orderdated 23.01.2020 passed by the Maharashtra RevenueTribunal in Revision preferred by respondent no.1 ? POINT NO.(i) :- 25.The order dated 08.08.1956 is passed onapplication filed by respondent no.1 for surrender of tenancy.Respondent no.1 has not disputed that such application wasfiled. Perusal of the application dated 28.07.1956 willdemonstrate that respondent no.1 states that he had vacatedthe possession over the suit property held in tenancy rights onhis own accord since he had ownership over vast stretch ofagricultural lands. The record also reveals that the evidence ofrespondent no.1 was recorded in which he reiterated that hewas unable to cultivate the suit lands and was, therefore,surrendering tenancy rights with respect to the suit property.The deposition is recorded on 08.08.1956. The orderaccepting surrender is passed on 08.08.1956. Avval Karkunhas recorded that the surrender was voluntary and thatrespondent no.1 categorically stated that he was not inposition to cultivate the suit lands. 26.It does not appear from reading of the order andon perusal of the record that the consequences of surrender 3110513.2022WP+.odtwere explained by the authority to respondent no.1. It alsodoes not appear that the authority has made an endorsementon the document of surrender that the consequences ofsurrender were understood by the tenant. It is thus clear thatthe surrender is not in accordance with the mandate ofSection 15 of the Act. Such a surrender has been held to bevoid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofRamchandra Keshav Adke (Dead) by Lrs v. Govind JotiChavare and others reported in AIR 1975 SC 915. It is heldthat provision of Section 15 are mandatory and failure tocomply with the same renders the surrender non est. Asregards the requirement of recording that the tenantunderstood the consequences of surrender, this Court has inthe matter of Keshav Ganesh Bedekar Vs. Gopinath KrishnaSalunke reported in (2003) 3 All M.R. 585 (Bom.) held thatsurrender of tenancy should not only be the voluntary but itshould also be established that the tenant understood theconsequences of such surrender. This Court has held thatunless record shows that the tenant understood theconsequences of surrender and such satisfaction is endorsedon the deed of surrender, surrender cannot be said to be validor legal surrender. 3210513.2022WP+.odt27.It must also be stated that the order dated08.08.1956 does not direct respondent no.1 to deliverpossession of the suit lands to the respondent/landlord. Thereis statement in the application that respondent no.1/tenanthad already surrendered possession. The words "rkck Lo[kq'khuslksMyk vkgs-" imply that respondent no.1 stated that he hadalready given up or surrendered the possession of the suitlands. However, perusal of the evidence, which is recorded on08.08.1956, will demonstrate that respondent no.1 stated thathe was surrendering the tenancy rights over the suit property.The deposition of respondent no.1 is silent on the aspect ofdelivery of possession. The order dated 08.08.1956 does notdirect the tenant to deliver possession of the suit lands torespondent/landlord. The order simply records thatrespondent no.1 - tenant had voluntarily surrendered histenancy and is completely silent on the aspect of possession. Itis also matter of record that respondent/landlord also did notfile any application for resumption of possession in view ofsurrender of tenancy rights by respondent no.1-tenant. In thisregard, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 has placedreliance on the judgment of this Court in the matter ofBhikubai Bhima Gaidhane Vs. Khandu Daji Pagar and another 3310513.2022WP+.odtreported in AIR 1973 Bom. 101, wherein it is held as under :-"7...... Under Section 15 a tenant may terminatethe tenancy in respect of any land at any time bysurrendering his interest therein in favour of thelandlord. Such surrender shall be in writing andverified before the Mamlatdar in a prescribed manner,where a tenant surrenders his tenancy the landlordshall be entitled to retain the land so surrendered.Mamlatdar also in this connection shall hold aninquiry and decide whether the landlord is entitled toretain the whole or any portion of the land sosurrendered and specify the extent and price in thatbehalf. The landlord also should get an order forgetting possession under Section 29(2). The landlordshall obtain possession of any land held by a tenantonly under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtainingsuch an order he shall make an application in theprescribed form and within a period of two years fromthe date on which he becomes entitled to obtainpossession of the land. Now, the legislature byenacting these provisions has safeguarded the interestof the tenants who may be ousted by an unscrupulouslandlord. But the landlord in the instant case says thatbecause the tenant has made a statement before theAgricultural Lands Tribunal that he was no more atenant and that he was no more in possession, itshould be treated as good as his giving up his tenant'srights. That certainly cannot be accepted. 3410513.2022WP+.odt8. Undoubtedly the record shows that therespondent was tenant of the land from the years1952-53 to 1964-65. No wonder therefore that theAgricultural Lands Tribunal had started proceedingsunder Section 32-G. Because of the statement of therespondent-tenant the Agricultural Lands Tribunaldropped the proceedings. Now the statement of therespondent merely shows that he had surrendered histenancy and that he has given up his possession.However, his statement will not stop the operation ofa social legislation which is for the benefit of tenantsand which is to safeguard their interests. Even if,therefore the respondent-tenant says that he hadsurrendered his possession, things ought to havetaken place according to law. Termination of tenancyby virtue of surrender should be in accordance withSection 15. Possession by a landlord should be inaccordance with Section 29. It cannot be in any otherway. It cannot certainly be merely as a result of thestatement of a tenant in S. 32-G proceedings. It,therefore, cannot be said that the alleged statement ofthe tenant in the instant case leads only to oneinference and that is that he ceased to be a tenant andthat he ceased to be in possession of the land."28.It will also be profitable to refer to the judgmentin the matter of Madhao Tatya Sonar Vs. The MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal at Nagpur and others reported in AIR 1971 3510513.2022WP+.odtBom. 106, wherein while dealing with pari materia provisionsof the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (VidarbhaRegion) Act,1958, this Court has held as under :- "28. Thus, a consideration of the provisions of Section20 and Section 36(1) and (2) and of the severalauthorities to which we have referred above leads tothe following conclusion:(i) That Section 36(2) of the Bombay Tenancy andAgricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, isplenary and controls Section 20. Thus, without anorder of possession of the Tahsildar, a tenant does notcease to be a tenant even though he has handed overpossession of the land he held as a tenant and eventhough the surrender is verified under the proviso toSection 20 read with Rule 11.(ii) That the consent or willingness of the tenant tosurrender is irrelevant and does not affect theoperation of the above rule.(iii) That an order for possession need not necessarilybe passed upon a separate application under Section36. It is sufficient if such an order is passed at thetime when the surrender comes up for verificationunder Section 20.". Sections 20 and 36 of the M.T.A.L. (VidarbhaRegion) Act are pari materia with Sections 16 and 29 3610513.2022WP+.odtrespectively of the M.T.A.L. Act. 29.It is consistent view of this Court and the Hon'bleSupreme Court that if a surrender is not strictly in accordancewith Section 15, the surrender is non est. It is expressly heldthat not only should the surrender be voluntary but it mustalso be established that the authority had arrived atsatisfaction that the tenant understood the consequences ofsurrender. This satisfaction should be endorsed on thedocument of surrender itself. In the present case, although theorder dated 08.08.1956 records that the surrender isvoluntary, it does not record that respondent no.1/tenant hasunderstood the consequences of surrender. Such anendorsement by Avval Karkun is not found on the record ofthe case. In that view of the matter, order dated 08.08.1956does not result in valid surrender in accordance with law. 30.Perusal of the aforesaid observations willdemonstrate that surrender of tenancy is not complete unlesslandlord takes possession of the agricultural land pursuant toan order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar for delivery of 3710513.2022WP+.odtpossession. The delivery of possession must be pursuant to anorder passed by the Competent Authority for delivery ofpossession. There must be an order for delivery of possessionin the order passed for surrender of tenancy under Section 15or a separate order under Section 29. Thus, surrender oftenancy is complete only when a tenant delivers possession ofthe property to the landlord pursuant to an order passed bythe Mamlatdar. Delivery of possession by tenant without anorder does not result in surrender of tenancy in view of theaforesaid decisions of this Court. 31.In the case at hand, there is no order directingdelivery of possession. The order dated 08.08.1956 admittedlydoes not direct delivery of possession. Moreover, the recordunerringly demonstrates that respondent no.1 continued to bein possession of the suit lands even after 08.08.1956 i.e. dateon which the order of surrender of tenancy was passed. It istherefore explicitly clear that the surrender has not come intoeffect in view of the fact that respondent no.1 continued to bein possession of the suit lands. 3810513.2022WP+.odtPOINT NO.(ii):-32.As regards joint tenancy, it must be stated that thecase of the petitioner was that he and respondent no.1 hadjoint tenants, since the lands were cultivated by their commonancestors as tenants. However, in the written statements filedin suit for possession by the landlords, being Regular Civil SuitNo.332/1975 and 333/1975, the petitioner came up with astand in written statement that in the partition in the family,these tenanted lands were allotted to his share. RespondentNo.1 also filed pursis adopting the same written statements. Itmust be reiterated that the application under Section 32G is ajoint application wherein both claimed tenancy over the suitlands. The stand taken in this application was not altered evenafter filing of written statement in the said suits. It must alsobe stated that after the matter was remanded by the MRT inthe first round of litigation vide order dated 28.02.1985directing the ALT to decide the issue of jointness of tenancy ofthe petitioner and respondent no.1, the ALT recorded findingthat respondent no.10 alone was tenant and he hadsurrendered the tenancy on 08.08.1956. Accordingly, theapplication was rejected, vide order dated 11.03.1999. Thisorder was challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal before 3910513.2022WP+.odtthe Sub-Divisional Officer. Appeal came to be decided videorder dated 24.04.2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer hasrecorded that the tenancy rights were vested jointly withpetitioner and respondent no.1. As regards surrender, it isobserved that the surrender does not become effective unlesspossession is delivered. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer hastherefore remanded the matter to ALT to decide Section 32Gapplication afresh. Perusal of findings will clearly demonstratethat the learned Sub-Divisional Officer held that petitionerand respondent no.1, both were tenants of the suit lands. Thematter was remanded to decide as to whether therespondent/landlord or the tenants i.e. petitioner andrespondent no.1 were in possession of the suit lands after08.08.1956 i.e. date of surrender. Thus, the Sub-DivisionalOfficer had remanded the matter back to the TenancyTahsildar after holding that petitioner and respondent no.1were joint tenants of the suit lands. It will be pertinent tomention that neither the petitioner nor respondent no.1, whonow claim tenancy rights to the exclusion of the other havenot challenged this order. Initially, respondent no.1 was noteven interested in contesting the proceedings as is apparentfrom the record. The petitioner, who was prosecuting the 4010513.2022WP+.odtproceedings participated in the proceeding after remand withthe finding that the tenancy was joint tenancy of petitionerand respondent no.1. Thus, this order of remand is binding onboth parties. It will also be pertinent to mention that the caseof the petitioner that the suit lands had fallen to his share inpartition between the family as is raised in the civil suits filedby the respondent/landlord is not accepted by the learnedTrial Court and also by the First Appellate court. The SecondAppeals are also not admitted by framing question regardingexclusive tenancy rights of the petitioner. 33.After remand of the matter, the ALT decided theapplication vide order dated 28.03.2018. Perusal of issuesframed by ALT will demonstrate that the issues were framedas to whether the petitioner was in occupation of the lands asa tenant and whether he was entitled to purchase the landsunder Section 32G. The learned ALT has observed that therecord indicated possession of petitioner and respondent no.1.The learned ALT has also recorded that the Sub-DivisionalOfficer had held in Tenancy Appeal No.2/1999 that thesurrender dated 08.08.1956 was merely a paper event and thesurrender was never acted upon. It is thereafter observed that 4110513.2022WP+.odtas on the Tillers Date, name of the father of the applicant wasrecorded in the revenue record as tenant. It is further heldthat in the earlier round of litigation, decision in respect oftenancy of respondent no.1 alone was taken, and therefore,right of applicant to purchase the lands was not closed. Inview of the aforesaid, the ALT directed issuance of salecertificate in favour of the petitioner alone. The findingrecorded by the ALT is contrary to finding recorded by theSub-Divisional Officer while remanding the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer has categorically held that petitioner andrespondent no.1 were joint tenants. However, the ALT hasheld that the petitioner alone was the tenant. The finding isclearly unsustainable, being contrary to the order passed bythe Appellate Authority while remanding the matter. The ALThas also not considered the contents of application filed bypetitioner on 06.01.1964 claiming joint tenancy rights withrespondent no.1 and the order passed thereon directing nameof the petitioner to be added as joint tenant with respondentno.1. 34.However, respondent no.1 did not challenge thesaid order earlier. The said order was challenged by the 4210513.2022WP+.odtlandlord. Appeal preferred by the landlords came to bedismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, vide order dated19.01.2019. Perusal of the order passed by the AppellateAuthority will demonstrate that respondent no.1 had raisedobjection that the sale certificate could not be ordered to beissued in favour of the petitioner alone. Although, therespondent no.1 did not file any Appeal, these contentionswere raised orally during the course of arguments. Thelearned Sub-Divisional Officer has held that respondent no.1had surrendered the tenancy rights recorded in order dated08.08.1956. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer has observedthat in view of order dated 08.08.1956 tenancy rights ofrespondent no.1 stood terminated and the petitioner alonewas entitled to sale certificate. 35.These findings by the learned ALT which are inturn confirmed by Sub-Divisional Officer are contrary to theorder of remand passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It is wellsettled that findings recorded by the Appellate Authority whileremanding the matter before the Court or Authority of firstinstance, are binding on both the parties as also theauthorities who decide the matter between the party are also 4310513.2022WP+.odtnot supposed to take contrary view other than the view takenin order of remand which is accepted by both sides. The orderdated 28.03.2018 passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar as alsoorder dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officerare therefore clearly unsustainable in view of earlier order ofremand. Once, it is held by the Appellate Authority thatpetitioner and respondent no.1 are joint tenants, the ALTwhich is a subordinate authority as also the Sub-DivisionalOfficer while entertaining the subsequent appeal could nothave recorded any contrary findings than the findingsrecorded by the same Authority while remanding the matter.The findings are also unsustainable in view of clear pleadingof petitioner in the application filed under Section 32Gregarding joint tenancy with respondent no.1, as also in theapplication dated 06.01.1964 filed by him for recording hisname as a tenant with respondent no.1. 36.As stated above, the revision filed by respondentno.1 challenging the order dated 19.01.2019 passed by theSub-Divisional Officer was rejected on the ground ofmaintainability and in the petition filed by respondent no.1liberty was granted to take recourse to appropriate legal 4410513.2022WP+.odtremedies. In view of the liberty granted, respondent no.1 filedan appeal. This Appeal came to be allowed vide impugnedorder dated 20.07.2021 in which it is held that respondentno.1 alone is the tenant of the suit lands and is entitled topurchase the suit lands under Section 32G of the Act. Thisorder dated 20.07.2021 is also contrary to the order ofremand passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer dated24.04.2000. As stated above, the order of remand holding thatpetitioner and respondent no.1 were joint tenants is bindingon parties. It is further well settled that findings which areconfirmed and accepted in an order of remand cannot bealtered subsequently when the matter is decided afreshpursuant to order of remand. The Sub-Divisional Officer hasclearly erred in recording findings about exclusive tenancyrights of respondent no.1 contrary to the order of remanddated 24.04.2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer has also nottaken into consideration the pleadings in 32G application filedby petitioner and respondent no.1, wherein respondent no.1clearly admitted jointness of tenancy with petitioner. Thefinding in the order of remand dated 24.04.2000 is notassailed by any party. In the subsequent round of litigation,said finding was binding and no finding could be recorded by 4510513.2022WP+.odtany judicial authority contrary to the finding recorded in theorder of remand. It must therefore be held that petitioner andrespondent no.1 were holding the lands as joint tenants.Neither the petitioner nor respondent no.1 can claim that healone is the tenant of the suit lands to the exclusion of theother. 37.As regards the revision filed before the MRT, therevision came to be dismissed. The learned MRT has also nottaken into consideration the express admissions in pleading ofrespondent no.1 regarding jointness of tenancy. The pleadingsin 32G application are the foundation of claim of petitionerand respondent no.1 is bound by his pleading, which thelearned MRT has completely ignored. The learned MRT hasalso not taken into consideration the fact that pursuant to anapplication dated 06.01.1964, order dated 20.06.1964 waspassed by Avval Karkun directing recording of the name ofpetitioner as tenant along with respondent no.1. This order isalso binding on respondent no.1. It also needs to bementioned that the findings in the remand order passed by theSub-Divisional Officer regarding joint tenancy cannot bedisturbed by the MRT since respondent no.1 had not 4610513.2022WP+.odtchallenged the said findings recorded in the remand order. POINT NO.(iii):- 38.The contention of the learned Senior Advocate forthe petitioner is that the order dated 28.03.2018 directingissuance of sale certificate in favour of the petitioner wasconfirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated19.01.2019 in Appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord.He contends that in view of this order dated 19.01.2019passed in Appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer could not havedirected issuance of sale certificate in favour of respondentno.1 vide order dated 20.07.2021. His contention is that theearlier order dated 19.01.2019 will operate as resjudicata. Hecontends that the Sub-Divisional Officer while allowing theAppeal preferred by respondent no.1 has committed seriouserror of law in not following the principle of resjudicata andas a consequence of this, two self contradictory orders withrespect to the same dispute are passed by the same authority.The learned Senior Advocate contends that whereas videorder dated 19.01.2019 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officersale certificate is ordered to be issued in favour of thepetitioner, by the subsequent order sale certificate with respectto the same lands is ordered to be issued in favour of 4710513.2022WP+.odtrespondent no.1. He further contends that order dated28.03.2018 has already merged with the appellate order dated19.01.2019, and therefore, the order dated 28.03.2018 couldnot have been challenged by respondent no.1 by filingseparate appeal since the order dated 28.03.2018 had lost itsexistence due to merger with appellate order dated19.01.2019. 39.Perusal of the first order of remand passed byMaharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 28.02.1985 willdemonstrate that two points were directed to be decided bythe learned MRT, first relating to subsistence of tenancy andsecond relating to inter se rights of the petitioner andrespondent no.1 as tenants. Vide order dated 28.03.2018, theTenancy Tahsildar has held that landlord-tenant relationshipexisted between petitioner and respondent and directedissuance of sale certificate in favour of petitioner. It is heldthat respondent no.1 had surrendered his tenancy rights.Thus, there are two points which are decided vide order dated28.03.2018. 40.The Appeal filed by respondent/landlord was first 4810513.2022WP+.odtin point of time and the same is dismissed vide order dated19.01.2019. The point which fell for consideration in thisappeal was as to whether the landlord and tenant relationshipexisted between the parties and whether tenants were entitledfor issuance of sale certificate in their favour. So far as, thesubsequent appeal prepared by respondent no.1 is concerned,the issue therein was with respect to inter se dispute betweenthe petitioner and respondent no.1, both of whom claimed tobe tenants. In the Appeal preferred by landlord, the pointdirectly and substantially in issue was relating to right oftenant to get sale certificate and appeal preferred byrespondent no.1, the point directly and substantially in issuein the subsequent application filed by respondent no.1 was asto whether the petitioner or respondent no.1 was the tenant. 41.In view of the above, the subsequent appealpreferred by respondent no.1 will not be barred by resjudicatasince the point directly and substantially in issue in both theappeals is different. POINT NO. (iv) :- 42.As regards merger also the same principle will 4910513.2022WP+.odtapply. The order dated 28.03.2018 merged with the orderdated 19.01.2019 preferred by respondent/landlord to theextent of adjudication of relationship of landlord and tenant.The landlord contended that the relationship was not inexistence at all. The landlord was not concerned with inter sedispute between the two tenants. His contention was thattenancy does not subsist at all. The order passed by theTahsildar has merged with the appellate order passed by theSub-Divisional Officer in this regard. The said order will nothave the effect of foreclosing right of respondent no.1 onmerits with respect to claim of tenancy rights inter se betweenhim and the petitioner. Appeal preferred by respondent no.1was therefore maintainable. 43.Vide order dated 28.03.2018, the Tahsildar hasheld that the petitioner was entitled for a sale certificate in hisname. Two parties can be said to be aggrieved by the saidorder, one respondents/landlords and second respondentno.1/co-tenant. The doctrine of merger will not have an effectof foreclosing of rights of co-tenant to challenge the orderpassed by the Mamlatdar only because the challenge by thelandlord had failed and the order by Tahsildar in that sense 5010513.2022WP+.odtand to that extent had merged with the order of appellateauthority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer. The Appeal preferred byrespondent no.1 was maintainable. 44.In view of the findings recorded above, in theconsidered opinion of this Court, the petition needs to bepartly allowed as under :- ORDER (i)Writ Petition No.10513/2022 is partly allowed. (ii)The order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the MaharashtraRevenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Revision No.44/B/2021/ANand Revision No.47/B/2021AN and order dated 20.07.2021passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sangamner Division,Sangamner in Tenancy Appeal No.66/2020 are quashed andset aside. (iii)The order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Tahsildar andAgricultural Tenancy Tribunal, Sangamner in Tenancy CaseNo.3/2017 of village Bota, Tq. Sangamner is modified byholding that petitioner and respondent no.1 are jointlyentitled to purchase the suit properties for considerationspecified in the said orders and directing issuance of salecertificate in joint name of petitioner and respondent no.1. 5110513.2022WP+.odt(iv)The petitioner and respondent no.1 have equal share inthe said lands. 45.Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.WRIT PETITION NO. 11968 OF 2022 :-For the reasons mentioned above, Writ Petition standsdismissed. Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.]sga/2025