{1} lpa16010.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.160 OF 2010 1 Maroti s/o Govinda Chavan, (deceased), through his legal representatives: (1) Harischandra s/o Maroti Chavan, (deceased) through his legal heirs: i) Vimalbai Harischandra Chavan, age: 50 years, Occ: Household; ii) Ganesh s/o Harischandra Chavan, age: 32 years, Occ: Agril., iii) Shivaji s/o Harischandra Chavan, age: 28 years, Occ: Agril., All above R/o Turkabad, Tq.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. iv) Sushila w/o Subhash Mhaske, age: 30 years, Occ: Household, R/o Bhuvaneshwar, Ektanagar, Roha, District Raigad. v) Sunita w/o Shivaji Dale, age: 25 years, Occ: Household, R/o Dhor Jalgaon, Tal.Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar. vi) Suvarna w/o Sudhakar Sonawane, age: 22 years, Occ: Household, R/o Bhuvaneshwr, Ektanagar, Roha, District Raigad. (2) Ramchandra s/o Maroti Chavan, age: 45 years; (3) Kondabai w/o Maroti Chavan, (deceased) through legal heirs. {2} lpa16010.odt All R/o Turkabad, Tq.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. (4) Induabai Chaimajdi Mhaske, age: 65 years; (5) Basantabai Laxman Gavli, age: 60 years; (6) Sandeepbai Namdev Karangale, age: 48 years; 2 Bhikchand s/o Gopinath Chavan, age: 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o Devalana Bokta, Tal. Yeola, District Nasik, originally R/o Turkabad, Tal.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3 Jaichand s/o Gopinath Chavan, age: 30 years, Occ: Business, R/o Turkabad, Tal.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. Appellants Versus 1 Patilba s/o Januji Patekar, (deceased) through legal representatives: 1(A) Zelabai w/o Patilba Patekar, age: 77 years, Occ: Household; 1(B) Jaibai d/o Shripad Bharad, age: 57 years, Occ: Household; 1( C ) Vasant s/o Patilba Patekar, (deceased) through his legal heirs: 1(D) Trimbak s/o Patilba Patekar, {3} lpa16010.odt age: 47 years; 1(E) Ashok s/o Patilba Patekar, age: 40 years; 1(F) Balchand s/o Patilba Patekar, age: 37 years, Occ: Agril., All R/o Turkabad, Tal.Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2 The State of Maharashtra. 3 The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. Mr. S.P.Deshmukh, advocate for appellants. Mr. M.N.Navandar, advocate for respondents no.1-B, 1-D, 1-E & 1- F. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 31 st January, 2011 ORAL ORDER (Per R.M.Borde, J.): 1 Heard arguments advanced by Shri S.P.Deshmukh, learned Counsel appearing for appellants and Shri M.N.Navandar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1-B, 1-D, 1-E & 1- F. 2 The appellants are raising exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. {4} lpa16010.odt 658 of 1990 decided on 26.02.2010. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition presented by appellants herein, has confirmed the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 30.06.1989. 3 The facts are stated in detail in the judgment delivered by the learned Single Jude, as such, those need not be reproduced here. The appellants are legal heirs of original landholder Gopinath Chavan, whereas, respondents are legal heirs of original tenant. The landholder claims his entitlement to the property in dispute on the basis of agreement to sell executed in favour of their predecessor-in-title Gopinath Chauhan by one Radhakishan – original land owner. On the date of execution of the agreement itself, by executing a separate lease agreement, the disputed land was handed over in possession of Patilba, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. Thus, it is contended that Patilba is inducted as tenant by the landholder i.e. predecessor-in-title of the appellants. The appellants claim their entitlement to recover possession of the property on the basis of judgment and order dated 29.08.1986, passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, who has confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar holding that the tenant is in default of payment of rent. As the claim for delivery of possession was not granted by the Deputy Collector, a fresh application came to be tendered by the landholder claiming delivery of possession of the land. Initially the {5} lpa16010.odt application was allowed by the Tahsildar, which order was confirmed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Aurangabad, whereas, order in respect of delivery of possession has been set aside by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal while entertaining the Revision Application tendered by the tenant and the said order has also been confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. 4 An important aspect, which needs to be taken note of, is that the predecessor-in-title of the respondents herein / original tenant objected to the grant of permission for alienation in favour of the land holder, which was the basis for the sale deed executed by Radhakishan in favour of Gopinath (predecessor-in-title of the appellants). The challenge raised by the tenant was upheld and permission issued in respect of alienation of the tenanted land was quashed and set aside by the Collector. The order passed by the Collector has attained finality, as the appeal presented by the landholder to the Board of Revenue has been dismissed on 03.11.1952. Thus, the status of the landholder, as owner of the property, has been set at naught. While upholding the order passed by the lower authorities, the Board of Revenue has recorded a categorical finding that Gopinath i.e. predecessor-in- title of the respondents is a protected tenant as he was found to be in possession seven years prior to enforcement of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The finding that the {6} lpa16010.odt predecessor-in-title of the respondents is a protected tenant in respect of the property, recorded by the Board of Revenue, has attained finality, as the same was not challenged by the land holder before any forum. 5 The learned Single Judge, while turning down the case put up by the appellants herein, has recorded that, by virtue of order of rejection of permission for alienation in favour of landholder, he cannot claim title to the property. Secondly, the permission for alienation has been refused on the ground that predecessor-in-title of respondent – Patilba was a protected tenant and the said finding, recorded by the Board of Revenue, has attained finality. 6 The second reason for turning down the claim of the landholder is that the landholder presented a suit against original owner of the land, being Regular Civil Suit No.16/1 of 1959 claiming recovery of Rs.5500/- and the said suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. Thus, after rejection of permission for alienation by the Revenue authorities, the landholder sued the original owner for recovery of the amount paid by him towards earnest money while executing the agreement to sell. Thus, the appellants herein are not entitled to claim any interest in the property in dispute. {7} lpa16010.odt 7 The third aspect, that is considered by the learned Single Judge, is in respect of the decree passed in favour of the original owner in Regular Civil Suit No.216/88 against the appellants herein, whereby the original owner has been declared to be the owner of the disputed property and the tenant i.e. Respondent herein has been restrained from delivering or transferring possession of the suit land in favour of appellants herein. 8 In view of the reasons recorded above, the appellants cannot claim any entitlement to the property, much less, recovery of possession from the respondents. The status of the respondents, as protected tenants, has not been challenged by the landholder before any forum and the finding of Board of Revenue, in that regard, has attained finality. 9 Considering all the above aspects, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. 10 A reference can also be made to a judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Shalini Shyam Shetty & another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 (7) SCALE 428. Considering the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment noted above, this Letters Patent Appeal need not be entertained. {8} lpa16010.odt 11 Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed. R.M.BORDE D.B.BHOSALE JUDGE JUDGE adb/lpa16010