wp2200.11.odt 1/5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETN. NO.2200/2011 Madhukar Sadashiv Korde and another -vs- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Shukla, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sonare, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.. Shri R.D.Bhuibhar, counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : 22.09.2011. Heard. There is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur on 04/11/2010 dismissing a revision application filed by the petitioners and upholding the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer holding that the petitioners had failed to prove that the petitioners were the lessees of the field property in question. It appears that the field property originally belonged to one Narayan Korde. He donated the same to a Devasthan. In the year 1957, Sakharam Talmale the father of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 was cultivating the said field as a tenant of the Devasthan. On 10/08/1967 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal fixed the purchase price of the field and declared that Sakharam was the owner of the suit field. Though the order of the Tribunal was challenged by the wp2200.11.odt 2/5 petitioners before the appellate as well as the revisional authorities, the order was maintained by both the authorities. It is the case of the petitioners that in the year 1972 Sakharam was prosecuted and during the relevant time, Sakharam had leased the property in question to the petitioners. It was the case of the petitioners that Shridhar Korde was the lessee of the land as Sakharam had orally leased the land to Shridhar Korde on batai basis in the year 1970-71. It appears that for the years 1970-71 and 1971-72 the names of the petitioners were recorded in the Revenue Record but after the acquittal of Sakharam in 1973, again the name of Sakharam was entered. In a suit filed by Sakharam on his forcible dispossession from the suit property, the issue of tenancy was raised by the petitioners and hence the same was referred to the revenue authorities. The Tahsildar, by an order dated 10/06/1993 decided the reference in favour of the petitioners and held that the suit field was leased to them in the year 1971. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 challenged the order of the Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order of the Tahsildar on 08/04/1994 and held that the petitioners were not the lessees of Sakharam and they cannot acquire the status of the tenant under the Act of 1958. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had remanded the matter to the wp2200.11.odt 3/5 Tahsildar, however, the respondent Nos.3 and 4 had filed Writ Petition No.1386/1998 against the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 29/11/1997 and this Court had by the judgment dated 4th of February, 2009 remanded the matter to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by quashing the order dated 27/11/1997. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was directed to decide the revision in accordance with law and also to consider the aspect of the applicability of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 1958 to the facts of the case. After the remand, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the impugned order dated 04/11/2010 dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Maharashra Revenue Tribunal was justified in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners. Under Section 57 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 there was a restriction on transfer of land purchased by a tenant under the provisions of the Act without the previous sanction of the Collector. In the instant case, the petitioners had claimed to be the lessees of the land purchased by Sakharam in pursuance of the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Since the petitioners had claimed to be the lessees of the land purchased by Sakharam under the provisions of the Act of 1958, it was necessary for the wp2200.11.odt 4/5 petitioners to prove that there was a previous sanction of the Collector. Since no sanction of the Collector was produced, the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal rightly held that the petitioners could not have claimed to be the lessees of the land in pursuance of an oral agreement of lease. Though an attempt was made by the petitioners before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal to prove that the provisions of Section 57 of the Act did not apply to the case in hand as the provisions did not apply to the lands purchased by an occupancy tenant, however, it was not proved by the petitioners that they had purchased the land or that they were the occupancy tenants. In such circumstances, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 57 of the Act of 1958 applied to the facts of this case and the petitioners could not have claimed that they were the lessees of the land. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners that an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur in a revenue revision on 1st of December, 1976 shows that the petitioners had cultivated the land during 1971-72 and hence, the petitioners should be declared to be the lessees of the land is ill founded and is liable to be rejected as even if it is assumed that the petitioners were in possession of the land for a year or two, the petitioners could not have proved that they were the tenants in the land as Sakharam could not have leased the land to the petitioners without the previous sanction of the Collector. wp2200.11.odt 5/5 Since the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is just and proper, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE KHUNTE