1 unreported IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 1991. 1. Madan Pandurang Ghuge, Age 17 years, Minor, 2. Suresh Pandurang Ghuge, Age 14 years, Minor. Both minor through their Guardian Mother Sushilabai Pandurang Ghuge-petitioner No.4 herei. 3. Ashok Kashinath Ghuge, Age 18 years, Minor - through his Guardian Mother- Kaushalabai Kashinath Ghuge Petitioner No.5 herein. 4. Sushilabai Pandurang Ghuge, Age about 35 years, 5. Kaushalabai Kashinath Ghuge, Aged about 45 years, All occupation : Agriculture, R/o Village Nimon, Taluka Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar ... Petitioners. Versus Dagadu Nana Ghuge, since deceased through his L.Rs. 2 1. Baburao S/o Dagadu Ghuge, Age 54 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. 2. Damodhar S/o Dagadu Ghuge, Age 52 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 3. Somnath S/o Dagadu Ghuge, Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. Smt.Babai Janku Avhad, Age 51 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist.Ahmednagar. 5. Smt.Chababai Chandrabhan Darade, Age 48 years, Occ.Agri., R/o Nimon, Tq. Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagar. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.U.Patil, advocate holding for Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Shinde, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 05.02.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By this petition, the petitioner impugns judgment and order rendered by learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) 3 in Revision Petition No.MRT/AH/X/1/89(TNC.B. 252/89):Pune, dt.13.8.1990, whereby and whereunder Revision Petition was allowed and order rendered by the SDO, Sangamner in appellate jurisdiction, as a Tenancy Tribunal was reversed and that of the Addl.Tahsildar, was confirmed. 2. The dispute relates to agricultural land bearing Gat No.883, admeasuring l hectare 76 Ares which was admittedly owned by Pandurang and Kashinath Ss/o Dada Ghuge. The petitioners are legal representatives of said Pandurang and Kashinath. Somewhere before five (5) years of filing tenancy application before Addl.Tahsildar, Sangamner vide Tenancy Case No.10/1985, Pandurang had died. The petitioners filed the tenancy application U/s 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act1948 (For short, BT & AL Act) for determination of status of deceased Respondent - Dagadu. They urged to inquire into the issue about his status, alleging that he was only agricultural labour appointed by Kashinath to cultivate the land in question. They submitted that he was falsely claiming himself as 4 a tenant. They alleged that they had paid certain amounts to deceased Respondent - Dagadu towards daily wages and had obtained receipt from him likewise from his other family members. The deceased Respondent - Dagadu, however, resisted the proceedings on the ground that he was tenant U/s 4 of the BT & AL Act. He submitted that the land in question was given to him on the basis of oral agreement of tenancy by Kashinath, in his capacity as Manager of the Joint Hindu family. He contended that he was cultivating the said land since long as a tenant. 3. Considering the rival submissions and the material placed on record, the Addl. Tahsildar held that deceased Respondent Dagadu proves his tenancy rights in respect of the suit land. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners preferred appeal (Tenancy Appeal No.85/1985) which was allowed by the Deputy Collector (SDO), Sangamner. The SDO held that deceased Respondent Dagadu was not tenant of the suit land but had worked as a daily wager. The deceased Respondent (Dagadu) preferred Revision Petition which came 5 to be allowed vide the impugned judgment. 4. Mr. Patil, learned advocate holding for Mr.Dhorde, strenuously argued that the deceased Respondent could not have been regarded as a tenant of the suit land. He contended that the MRT committed patent error while reappreciating the evidence. He submitted that the MRT exceeded revisional jurisdiction available U/s 76 of the BT and AL Act and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is required to be interfered with. He further submitted that the appellate order of the SDO was quite sustainable when the evidence on record indicated payment of daily wages to deceased Respondent Dagadu and his family members. He would submit that the impugned judgment suffers from perversity because the appellate judgment was based on material available on record and, therefore, there was no scope to interfere with the same. He urged, therefore, to allow the petition and set aside the impugned judgment. 5. Mr.Shinde, learned advocate supports 6 the impugned judgment. 6. The clinching question is whether the appellate judgment of the learned SDO was based on tangible material and could be regarded as invariable due to sound reason or for any other reason. It is true that Section 76 of the BT & AL Act envisages certain parameters vide the grounds on which the order of the Collector can be interfered with in the exercise of Revisional jurisdiction. There can not be duality of opinion that the scope of Revisional jurisdiction is narrow. On plain reading of Section 76(1)(a) of BT & AL Act, it is amply clear that if the order of the Collector is found contrary to law then interference is permissible. 7. Mr.Patil, learned advocate seeks to place reliance on observations in "Abdul Rajtak Abdul Rehman Mulla and another Vs. Ibrahim Yusuf Lambe" 2006 (1) Mh.L.J.107. A Single Judge of this Court held that where the MRT consciously entered into area of facts and transgressed limits placed on it by Section 76 by reversing 7 finding of fact, the order will not sustainable when it is noticed that reappreciation of evidence was done. The learned Single Judge relied on "Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Babu Wathare" AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2051, in support of the decision regarding restricted area of power of the Tribunal to reverse findings of facts. Reliance is also placed on certain observations in "Hanmanta Daulappa Nimbal since deceased by his Hiers and L.Rs. Vs. Babasaheb Dajisaheb Londhe" AIR 1996 Supreme Court 223. The Apex Court held that mere entries in revenue record and payment of land revenue, without giving notices to the landlord, can not establish tenancy rights U/s 4 of the BT & AL Act. 8. Coming to the judgment rendered by the learned SDO, Sangamner, it may be gathered that the private receipts filed by the petitioners about payments made to the Respondent and his family members were heavily relied upon. It further appears that the SDO observed that the land was being cultivated in accordance with mode-2 and, therefore, the deceased Respondent 8 could not get any right as a tenant. This is a factual error committed by the learned SDO. The MRT noticed that the cultivation column of the 7/12 extract record indicated that the land was being cultivated as per mode No.3. Thus, name of the deceased Respondent was shown in the relevant column of the 7/12 record from 1969-70 onwards till 1984 as person in possession and the mode of cultivation was shown as "3". Had it been shown that the cultivation was being done as per mode No.2 then perhaps the observations of the SDO could have any relevance. The SDO held that the inquiry made by the Addl. Tahsildar was not in accordance with the Tenancy Act. This is too vague and improper observation. The Tenancy Tribunal gave due opportunity to the parties to put forth their submissions and adduce necessary evidence. The MRT rightly held that though private receipts were produced by the petitioners, yet, they were not duly proved in accordance with the requirement of the Evidence Act. Mere production of such receipts could not have been a sufficient ground to discard the claim of the deceased Respondent Dagadu in 9 respect of his tenancy rights. The MRT noticed that the petitioners were residing at Mumbai and Kashinath alone use to visit village once in a year to collect the crop share as per the version of deceased Respondent Dagadu. If the petitioners themselves had engaged labours, the receipts might have been obtained by them in respect of payments of daily wages. However, all along it was their case that Kashinath use to engage deceased Respondent Dagadu as a labour. Said Kashinath was not a party to the application filed before the Addl. Tahsildar nor there was any substantial reason to keep him away from the hearing of the application. Needless to say, when the perversity was noticed in the findings of the SDO, the MRT was well justified in allowing the Revision Petition. There appears no excessive exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. The fact situation in the present case is on different footings from the fact situation obtained in the case of "Abdul Rajtak Abdul Rehman Mulla and another Vs. Ibrahim Yusuf Lambe" (supra). 10 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any substance in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/wp201291