MANIKA RANBA L.RS. PARVATIBAI VITTHALRAO SANGLE AND ORSversusMANOHAR MUKUNDA PANCHAL DIED THR LRS VENUBAI AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:33215



                                                             Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                                             :: 1 ::



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD



                               WRIT PETITION NO. 1736 OF 2011
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2710 OF 2013 WITH
                          CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6160 OF 2024 WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6788 OF 2025


              Manika s/o Ranba, Died through L.Rs.
              Smt. Parvatibai w/o Vitthalrao Sangle & ors.    …Petitioners

                     VERSUS

              Manohar s/o Mukunda & ors.                      …Respondents

                                              …..
              Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners
              Mr. B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for State
              Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1(b)
                                                 …..


                              CORAM :      SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

                              DATE :       27th JULY, 2026

              ORDER:

              1.         The petitioners raise challenge to the judgment and

              order dated 15.10.2010 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue

              Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 61/B/1984/P, reversing the

              findings of the Additional Tahsildar vis-a-vis the Deputy Collector,

              Land Reforms, declaring the original petitioner to be a protected

              tenant.
                                                 Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                                 :: 2 ::


2.          The dispute in relation to agricultural land bearing

Survey No. 73A, admeasuring 1H-72R, situated at village Dongar-

Jawala,   Tq.   Gangakhed,     District    Parbhani.   The   respondents

instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 243 of 1978 in the Court of Civil

Judge Junior Division, Gangakhed, seeking recovery of possession

alleging that the original petitioner (Manikrao/ Manika s/o Ranba)

illegally dispossessed them during the agricultural year 1976-1977.


3.          The petitioner defended the suit, claiming to be in

lawful possession of the land as a tenant since 1955. The petitioner

claimed that a 1/4th share belonging to the respondents’ brother

(Narayan Mukunda) was leased to him. The petitioner further

claimed that the respondents executed an agreement to sell the

land for Rs. 2,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,200/- were paid, continuing

his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In

view of the statutory bar on Civil Courts deciding tenancy claims, as

such, the Civil Court framed issue of tenancy and referred the

matter to the Tahsildar, Gangakhed.


4.          The   Additional    Tahsildar,    Sailu,   by    order   dated

20.10.1981, declared the petitioner to be a lawful tenant based on

oral evidence and revenue records. Same was endorsed by the

Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani, on 12.01.1984.
                                              Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                               :: 3 ::

5.          Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred

Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which

allowed the revision and set aside the tenancy declaration on

15.10.2010. Raising an exception to the same, the petitioner has

approached this Court.


6.          The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded the revisional jurisdiction

by re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence. The Authorities

below concurrently found that the petitioner was cultivating the

land as a tenant since 1955. The entry in the Khasra Pahani Patrak

of year 1955-1956 records the petitioner’s possession. The learned

counsel further submits that, it is not open for Revisional Courts to

disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Authorities

below unless those are contrary to the record. As such, prayed to

allow the petition.


7.          The learned counsel for respondent No. 1(b) supported

the order under challenge submitting that the Khasra Pahani Patrak

entry for the year 1955-1956 independently does not conform to

the procedure     required   to register   a tenancy. No      tenancy

agreement or receipts of payment of rent were produced by the

petitioner. The orders by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector

suffered from a fundamental error of law and warrants correction.
                                                      Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                                    :: 4 ::

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.


8.          The learned A.G.P. also supported the order under

challenge and prayed for dismissal of the petition.


9.          Upon considering the rival submissions of the litigating

sides and perusing the material on record, the issue falls for

consideration is that whether the Subordinate Tribunal acted within

its bounds or committed a gross error of law. Since, it does not act

as a regular court of appeal, the revisional jurisdiction of the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is restricted. As such, it is not open

to set aside concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are

found to be perverse.       Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act

reads as under :


          “53A. Part performance.— Where any person contracts to
          transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing
          signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary
          to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable
          certainty,

          and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract,
          taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the
          transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession
          in part performance of the contract and has done some act in
          furtherance of the contract,

          and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his
          part of the contract,

          then, notwithstanding that 2***, or, where there is an
          instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed
          in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being
          in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall
                                                         Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                                      :: 5 ::

           be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons
           claiming under him any right in respect of the property of
           which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other
           than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract:

           Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a
           transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract
           or of the part performance thereof.”


10.          Upon     perusing      the    record,     it   indicates     that   the

Additional Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector examined both the

oral statements and the revenue record. The Khasra Pahani Patrak

of 1955-1956 confirms that the petitioner's induction into the

property   was     legal.    The    Tribunal     committed        irregularity   by

evaluating the Khasra Patrak and rendering finding, did not support

the tenancy. Once a fact is established by public record and

supported by oral testimonies, the Tribunal cannot substitute same

as against fact-finding rendered by the authorities concurrently.


11.          The existence of a subsequent agreement to sale does

not efface the effect of established tenancy unless there is

surrender of tenancy rights. The petitioner's status as a tenant

remained intact. The Tribunal, therefore, exceeded the revisional

jurisdiction while discarding the reasoned order of the Authorities

below.


12.          In view of the above, the impugned order rendered by

the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is unsustainable since it exceeds
                                                            Writ Petition No.1736/2011
                                          :: 6 ::

the     scope    of   its     revisional     jurisdiction     while   acting    upon

assumptions.


13.             As such, the Tribunal erred in law by reversing the

findings of fact recorded by Authorities below which validly

established the petitioner's tenancy. Consequently, the order under

challenge being unsustainable, deserves to be quashed and set

aside.


14.             Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.


15.             The judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra

Revenue Tribunal dated 15.10.2010 in Case No. 61/B/1984/P is

quashed and set aside.


16.             The         orders   of     the     Additional    Tahsildar    dated

20.10.1981 and the Deputy Collector dated 12.01.1984 are hereby

restored.


17.             No order as to costs.


18.             Pending civil applications, also stand disposed of.




                                               (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

fmp/-