RAM BABU PATIL AND ORSversusYASHWANT BHAGIRAT PATIL AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:41218

                                                                       wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.10982 OF 2026

            Shri Ram Babu Patil and Ors.                      ...   Petitioners
                  versus
            Yashwant Bhagirat Patil and Ors.                  …     Respondents
                                             WITH
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.11013 OF 2026

            Shri Ram Babu Patil and Ors.                      ...   Petitioners
                  versus
            Yashwant Bhagirat Patil and Ors.                  …     Respondents

            Mr. Girish Godbole, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sumit Kothari, for Petitioners.
            Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate i/by Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi with Mr. Suraj N. Naik,
            for Respondent Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in WP No.10982 of 2026.
            Mr. Sunil Karandikar i/by Mr. R.D.Suryawanshi, Mr. Suraj N. Naik for
            Respondent Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in WP No.11013 of 2026.


                               CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                               RESERVED ON               : 21 SEPTEMBER 2026
                               PRONOUNCED ON             : 9 OCTOBER 2026

            JUDGMENT :

            1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the consent of the

            learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.

            2.      By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the

            Petitioners take exception to a common judgment and order dated 5

            December 2023 passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue

            Tribunal, in Tenancy Revision Application No.328 of 2022 and 373 of 2018,



            SSP                                                               1/26
                                                             wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

whereby the revision applications preferred by Respondent Nos.1 to 13 came

to be allowed and the judgment and order dated 8 February 2017 in Tenancy

Remand Appeal No.37 of 2015 and the judgment and order dated 12

February 2021 in Tenancy Appeal No.168 of 2017, respectively, passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), were quashed and set aside.

3.    The dispute has a chequered history with multiple rounds of litigation

before the authorities under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands

Act, 1948 (the MT & AL Act, 1948), spanning over half a century. Yet, shorn of

unnecessary details, the background facts leading to these petitions can be

summerized as under :

3.1   The facts in WP No.10982 of 2026 are hereinafter noted as a lead

matter and the parties are hereinafter referred in the capacity in which they

are arrayed therein.

3.2   Sorabji Meherbanji, the predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.14 to

17, was the original owner of eight parcels of agricultural lands having distinct

survey numbers situated at Village Surai, Tal. Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane (the

larger properties), inclusive of the land bearing old Survey No.16/4, new

Survey No.40/4, admeasuring 0H 48R (the subject land).

3.3   The Petitioners asserted that, Pandu Manglya Patil, grand father of

Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and father in law of Petitioner No.3, was the tenant in

SSP                                                                 2/26
                                                             wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

respect of the subject land since 1930-31. In the year 1954-55, the name of

Babu Pandu Patil, father of Petitioner Nos.1 and 2, came to be mutated to the

record of rights of the subject land in the cultivator’s column. Babu Pandu

Patil, predecessor in title of the Petitioners and, after his demise, the

Petitioners have allegedly been in continuous occupation and cultivation of

the subject land.

3.4   Respondent Nos.1 to 13 are the successors in interest of one Anya

Govind Patil, whose name, according to the Petitioners, was unlawfully

mutated to the record of rights of the subject land vide M.E.No.1193,

purportedly certified on 15 May 1962.           On the strength of the said

M.E.No.1193, the Petitioners assert, the name of           Anya Govind Patil,

predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13, was wrongfully and

surreptitiously mutated as tenant in respect of the subject land.

3.5   The said M.E.No.1193 is the genesis of a three pronged dispute.

      Proceedings initiated at the instance of Anya Govind Patil –

predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13 :

3.6   Asserting rights on the basis of M.E.No.1193, Anya Govind Patil and

others filed an application under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, being

Tenancy Case No.32G/Kra.L-5527, seeking fixation of purchase price in

respect of the larger properties. By an order dated 30 November 1965,

SSP                                                                 3/26
                                                           wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

purchase price was fixed in respect of the larger properties.    Eventually, a

certificate under Section 32M of the MT & AL Act, 1948 came to be issued in

favour of Anya Govind Patil. It, however, appears that effect was not given to

the said certificate under Section 32M of the MT & AL Act, 1948, in the record

of rights of the subject land.

      Proceedings at the instance of Landlords :

3.7   Respondent Nos.14 to 17 filed an application under Section 70(b),

being Tenancy Case No.351 of 2010, before the ALT, Bhiwandi, seeking a

negative declaration that Anya Govind Patil, predecessor in title of

Respondent Nos.1 to 13, was not the tenant in respect of the larger properties

and, thus, sought deletion of his name from the record of rights of the larger

properties, including the subject land.

3.8   By an order dated 31 January 2014, ALT partly allowed Tenancy Cae

No.35 of 2010 filed by Respondent Nos.14 to 17 and declared that the name

of Anya    Govind Patil be deleted from the record of rights of the larger

properties as tenant thereof, except the subject land.

3.9   In Appeal No.114 of 2014, preferred by the successors in interest of

Anya Govind Patil, the SDO set aside the aforesaid order and restored the

order dated 30 November 1965 passed by the ALT in the proceeding under

Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, in favour of Anya Govind Patil and

SSP                                                               4/26
                                                            wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

others.

      Proceedings at the instance of the Petitioners :

3.10 Babu Pandu Patil, predecessor in title of the petitioners, filed an

application under Section 70(b) of the MT & AL Act, 1948, being Tenancy

Case No.52 of 2010, against Respondent Nos.14 to 17 and the successors in

interest Anya Govind Patil, seeking a declaration that the subject land has

been in the occupation and cultivation of Babu Pandu Patil as tenant thereof

since prior to the Tiller’s day, and that Anya Govind Patil was not the tenant

thereof.

3.11 By a judgment and order dated 8 August 2011, ALT dismissed Tenancy

Case No.52 of 2010 instituted by Babu Pandu Patil, holding that the

predecessor in title of the Petitioners was not the tenant in respect of the

subject land, and also declined to grant a negative declaration that Anya

Govind Patil was not the tenant in respect of the subject land.

3.12 Being aggrieved, Babu Pandu Patil preferred Tenancy Appeal No.203 of

2011 before the SDO, Bhiwandi. In addition, tenancy Appeal No.9 of 2012

was also filed by Babu Pandu Patil assailing the legality and validity of the

order dated 30 November 1965 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case

No.32G/KRA/1.5527 determining the purchase price.

3.13 By separate judgments and orders dated 8 July 2013, the SDO,

SSP                                                                5/26
                                                          wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

Bhiwandi, dismissed both the abovenumbered appeals.

3.14 Babu Pandu Patil preferred Tenancy Revision No.535 of 2013 assailing

the order passed in Tenancy Appeal No.9 of 2012 and Tenancy Revision

No.536 of 2013 assailing the order passed in Tenancy Appeal No.203 of 2011,

before the MRT.

3.15 By its judgment and order dated 18 May 2015, the MRT disposed Babu

Patil’s Tenancy Revision No.536 of 2013 as withdrawn and the Tenancy

Revision No.535 of 2013 was partly allowed and the order dated 8 July 2013

passed by the SDO, Bhiwandi in Tenancy Appeal No.9 of 2012 (against the

order dated 30 November 1965 passed by ALT in 32G proceeding in favour of

Anya Govind Patil and others) was quashed and set aside and the proceeding

was remitted back to the SDO with a direction to decide the application for

condonation of delay in the first instance, and, in the event, the delay was

condoned, decide the main appeal (TA No.9 of 2012) on merits.

3.16 Upon remand, SDO Bhiwandi, condoned the delay in preferring the

appeal, and, thereafter, allowed Babu Pandu Patil’s Tenancy Appeal No.9 of

2012 (renumbered as 37 of 2015), by setting aside the judgment and order

dated 30 November 1965 passed by the ALT to the extent of the subject land

bearing Survey No.40/4 and remitted the matter back to ALT to decide the

application under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, afresh on merits.


SSP                                                              6/26
                                                                wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

3.17 The application preferred by Babu Pandu Patil under Section 32G of

the MT & AL Act, 1948, was upon remand, renumbered as Tenancy Case

No.32G/Re-Inquiry/2/2017, and by a judgment and order dated 3 May 2017,

the ALT allowed the said application and determined the purchase price of the

subject land. Upon deposit of the purchase price, a certificate under Section

32M of the MT & AL Act, 1948, came to be issued by Tahasildar / ALT,

Bhiwandi, in favour of Babu Pandu Patil on 12 September 2017.

3.18 The Respondent Nos.1 to 13 preferred Tenancy Revision Application

No.373 of 2018 before the MRT, assailing the judgment and order dated 8

February 2017 passed by the SDO in Appeal No.37 of 2015.

3.19 Respondent Nos.1 to 13 also preferred              Tenancy Appeal No.168 of

2017 before the SDO, Bhiwandi, challenging the determination of the

purchase      price     in    Babu      Pandu       Patil’s   Tenancy          Case

No.32G/Re-Inquiry/2/2017.       By a judgment and order dated 12 February

2021, the SDO dismissed the said Appeal No.168 of 2017. It was, inter alia,

observed that the name of Babu Pandu Patil was entered in the record of

rights of the subject land prior to the Tiller’s day.

3.20 Respondent Nos.1 to 13 preferred Tenancy Revision Application

No.328 of 2022 before the MRT challenging the said judgment and order

dated 12 February 2021 in Tenancy Appeal No.168 of 2017.


SSP                                                                     7/26
                                                               wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

3.21 Learned President, MRT heard the Revision Application No.373 of 2018

preferred against the judgment and order dated 8 February 2017 passed by

the SDO in Appeal No.37 of 2015, thereby remitting the matter back to the

Tahasildar / ALT for afresh determination, and Revision Application No.328 of

2022 against the judgment and order dated 12 February 2021 passed by the

SDO, thereby dismissing Appeal No.168 of 2017 filed by Respondent Nos.1

to 13 against the determination of the purchase price in respect of the subject

land in favour of Babu Pandu Patil, together.

3.22 By a common judgment and order dated 5 December 2023, the learned

President, MRT, allowed both the Revision Applications observing, inter alia,

that the entries in the record of rights in regard to the cultivation of the subject

land by Babu Pandu Patil appeared to be suspect and interpolated.

Secondly, the status of the predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13 and

that of Babu Pandu Patil qua the subject land was already determined in the

previous proceedings before the authorities under the MT & AL Act, 1948 and

the challenge thereto, at the instance of the predecessor in title of the

Petitioners, was barred by the principle of res-judicata. Thus, the order

passed by the SDO in Tenancy Remand Appeal No.37 of 2015 was set aside

and the order dated 30 November 1965 passed by the ALT in proceedings

under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, in favour of the predecessor in

title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13 was restored. Likewise, the order dated 3

SSP                                                                   8/26
                                                            wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

May 2017 passed by the ALT in a proceeding under Section 32G, being Case

No.32G/re-inquiry/2/2017 and the order passed in Tenancy Appeal No.168 of

2017 by the SDO, were set aside.

3.23 For the sake of completeness, it is necessary to note that in the Review

Application Nos.1 of 2024 and 2 of 2024, learned President, MRT, allowed the

review and dismissed both the Revision Application Nos.373 of 2018 and 328

of 2022 and restored the orders which were set aside by the judgment and

order dated 5 December 2023 in the Revision Applications.                 In WP

Nos.14312 of 2024 and 14311 of 2024, this Court set aside the orders passed

in review and, thus, the orders passed in revisions stood restored. That is how

the Petitioners have again assailed the orders passed in Revision Application

Nos.328 of 2022 and 373 of 2018.

3.17 The broad position which thus emerges is that, the status of Anya

Govind Patil, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13, as the tenant in

respect of the subject land stands affirmed; the decision in Tenancy Case No.

No.32G/Kra.L-5527 dated 30 November 1965 in favour of Anya Govind Patil

stands restored; the declaration that Babu Pandu Patil was not the tenant in

respect of the subject land stands confirmed and the determination of the

purchase price in respect of the subject land in favour of Babu Pandu Patil

and the consequent Certificate issued under Section 32M of the MT & AL Act,



SSP                                                                9/26
                                                           wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

1948, stand quashed and set aside.

4.    In the wake of the aforesaid chequored history of litigation and the

position as it obtains today, I have heard Mr. Girish Godbole, learned Senior

Advocate for the Petitioners, Mr. Atul Damle, learned Senior Advocate for

Respondent Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in WP No.10982 of 2026 and Mr. Karandikar,

learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in WP No.11013 of 2026.

5.    Mr. Godbole, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners, canvassed a

two pronged submission premised on the legal implications of a tenant being

in cultivation of the agricultural land on the Tiller’s day.       Firstly, the

determination of the purchase price by the ALT by an order dated 30

November 1965 in favour of Anya Govind Patil was solely on the basis of the

purported mutation entry No.1193.       Since the said mutation entry was

purportedly certified on 15 May 1962, it could not have been the basis of the

claim that, Anya Govind Patil, predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13,

was in possession and cultivation of the subject land on the Tiller’s day. The

Kabulayat on the basis of which the said mutation entry No.1193 was certified

did not see the light of the day.   Thus, the order passed by the ALT under

Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, qua the subject land, was manifestly

infirm, submitted Mr. Godbole.

6.    Secondly and conversely, Mr. Godbole would submit, the record of


SSP                                                               10/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

rights of the subject land makes it abundantly clear that Babu Pandu Patil,

predecessor in title of the Petitioners, was in cultivation of the subject land

since the year 1952-53 continuously. The entries in the cultivation column

clearly demonstrate that, as on the Tiller’s day, Babu Pandu Patil who was in

possession and cultivation of the subject land.     If mutation entry No.1193 is

considered in juxtaposition with the entries in the record of rights of the

subject land, the unsustainability of the claim of Anya Govind Patil,

predecessor in title of Respondent Nos.1 to 13, becomes explicitly clear. The

ALT and SDO have upon evaluation of the aforesaid material, which

unmistakably indicated that Babu Pandu Patil was in cultivation of the subject

land since prior to the Tiller’s day, recorded concurrent and justifiable findings

of facts. In exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction, the MRT could not have

interfered with the orders passed by the ALT and SDO.

7.    Mr. Godbole would further submit that, the fact that in a maze of

proceedings, certain orders were passed by the authorities under the MT & AL

Act, 1948, discarding the claim of predecessor in title of the Petitioners is of

no significance as eventually by an order dated 18 May 2015 in Tenancy

Revision Application No.535 of 2013, MRT had remanded the matter back to

the SDO for afresh determination. The said order was not challenged by any

of the Respondents. Consequently, Mr. Godbole would urge, the order dated

18 May 2015 permitting the withdrawal of Tenancy Revision Application

SSP                                                                  11/26
                                                             wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

No.536 of 2013 against the order dated 8 July 2013 passed in Tenancy

Appeal No.203 of 2011 cannot be read de hors the order of remand in

Tenancy Revision Application No.535 of 2013. As the MRT directed afresh

determination of the Tenancy Appeal No.9 of 2012, the withdrawal of Tenancy

Revision Application No.536 of 2013 did not impinge upon the rights and

claim of Babu Pandu Patil.

8.    As against this, Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent

Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in WP No.10982 of 2026, stoutly submitted that the MRT

was fully justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction as the authorities

below had committed gross error in law in determining the purchase price

under Section 32G in respect of the subject land when the order fixing the

purchase price of the subject land passed in the year 1965, was not assailed

for over 40 years.

9.    Secondly, Mr. Damle would urge, the claim of Babu Pandu Patil was

apparently based on the entries in the cultivator’s column of record of rights of

the subject land, which ex-facie appeared to be suspicious and interpolated.

Those entries were not made in the chronological order and the name of

Babu Pandu Patil was inserted as cultivator in between the entries made in

seriatim. The ALT and the SDO were, thus, clearly in error in basing their

findings on such suspect material. The MRT had rightly held that the entries



SSP                                                                 12/26
                                                            wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

in the cultivator’s column of the subject land appeared to have been

interpolated and the question as to who was the tenant in respect of the

subject land had attained finality, and, therefore, the challenge thereto, was

barred by the principle of res-judicata.

10.   Mr. Karandikar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 11 and 13 in

WP No.11013 of 2026, supplemented the submissions of Mr. Damle. Mr.

Karandikar laid emphasis on the fact that the twin questions as to whether

Anya Govind Patil was the tenant in respect of the subject land on the Tiller’s

day and whether Babu Pandu Patil was not in possession and cultivation of

the subject land on the Tiller’s day, were conclusively determined by the

authorities under the MT & AL Act, 1948, not only in the proceedings instituted

by Babu Pandu Patil or his successors in interest, but also the proceedings at

the instance of the landlord.

11.   Mr. Karandikar laid stress on the order passed by the ALT in Tenancy

Case No.52 of 2010 filed by Babu Pandu Patil seeking a declaration that he

was the tenant in respect of the subject land and that the name of Anya

Govind Patil (Respondent No.5 therein), was unlawfully recorded as tenant in

respect of the subject land.       Both the questions were answered in the

negative and it was declared that late Babu Pandu Patil was not the tenant in

respect of the subject land.



SSP                                                                13/26
                                                           wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

12.     Mr. Karandikar also banked upon the judgment and order passed by

the SDO in Tenancy Appeal no.114 of 2014 dated 11 November 2016,

whereby the SDO set aside the order passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case

No.35 of 2010 filed by the landlords – Respondent Nos.14 to 17, thereby

directing that the name of Anya Govind Patil be deleted as the tenant from

rest of the larger properties, except Survey No.40/4 (the subject land).     By

the said order dated 11 November 2016, the SDO set aside the said order

dated 31 January 2014 passed by the ALT and restored the order fixing the

purchase price of the subject land passed under Section 32G in the year

1966.    Babu Pandu Patil was also the party Respondent to the said appeal.

Thus, once the status of Anya Govind Patil as a tenant in respect of the

subject land was reaffirmed in the proceedings both at the instance of the

landlord and Babu Pandu Patil, the authorities could not have ventured into

the determination of the said question afresh, urged Mr. Karandikar

13.     Mr. Karandikar further submitted that, the Petitioners cannot draw any

mileage from the fact that, Tenancy Revision Application No.536 of 2013

(which was withdrawn) and Tenancy Revision Application No.535 of 2013

were disposed on one and the same day by the MRT. Taking the Court

through the orders passed by the MRT on 18 May 2015 and, particularly the

roznama of the proceedings, Mr. Karandikar submitted that, first Tenancy

Revision No.536 of 2013 was withdrawn by Babu Pandu Patil. Therefore, the

SSP                                                               14/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

submission that both the orders formed part of one composite determination,

cannot be countenanced.

14.    Though the litigation has a chequered history with multiple rounds and

over a dozen proceedings, yet, the controversy between the parties lies in a

narrow compass. Who was in the cultivation of the subject land on the Tiller's

Day is the moot question; upon the answer to which the fate of the rival claims

hinges.

15.   Incontrovertibly, by an order dated 30 November 1965, the ALT fixed

the purchase price under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, purportedly

on the basis of Mutation Entry No. 1193 which recorded that Anya Govind

Patil, the predecessor-in-tile of the Respondent Nos.1 to 13, had been in

cultivation of the subject land on the basis of a Kabulayat and was in actual

possession thereof on 17 April 1962.

16.   Per contra, the Petitioners lay claim of tenancy over the subject land on

the ground that, Babu Pandu Patil was in possession and cultivation of the

subject land since prior to the Tiller's day. The edifice of the said claim of the

Petitioners entirely rests on the entries in the cultivator's column of the record

of rights of the subject land. In effect, at the heart of the controversy are the

Mutation Entry No. 1193 and the entries in the record of rights of the subject

land in the cultivator's column.


SSP                                                                  15/26
                                                            wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

17.    A correct appreciation of the import of the aforesaid two documents

provides a legitimate answer to the controversy at hand. First, the nature of

the aforesaid two documents deserves to be appreciated and then the legal

implications thereof. Mutation Entry No. 1193 certified on 15 May 1962

records that late Sorabji Meherbanji was the landlord of the larger properties

including the subject land. The name of Anya Govind Patil, the predecessor-

in-tile of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 13, was entered as a tenant thereof on the

basis of kabulayat. The officer certifying the said Mutation Entery No. 1193

has made an endorsement that Anya Govind Patil was in possession since

prior to 1949 on the basis of kabulayat. On the date of mutation as well, Anya

Govind Patil was in possession of the subject land. What is of critical salience

is that, the certifying Officer has made a categorical endorsement that

kabulayat was verified.

18.    The said Mutation Entry thus records the instrument under which late

Anay Govind Patil, came in possession of the subject land and since when.

On a plain construction, the said Mutation Entry No. 1193 evidences Anya

Govind Patil's possession and cultivation of the subject land as on the Tiller's

day.

19.    It is imperative to note that not only the said Mutation Entry No. 1193

was not challenged before any Authority till the year 2010 but even the order



SSP                                                                16/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

dated 30 November 1965 fixing the purchase price in respect of the larger

properties, including the subject land was not assailed either by the landlord

or Babu Pandu Patil till the year 2010. It appears that, post 2010 there was a

flurry of proceedings both at the instance of successors-in-interest of the

landlord and the predecessor-in-tile of the Petitioners.

20.       The thrust of the submission of Mr. Godbole was that, the said Mutation

Entry No. 1193, certified in the year 1962, was of no significance since the

name of Babu Pandu Patil was shown as cultivator of the subject land even

prior to the Tiller's day, as was evident from the record of rights of the subject

land. .

21.       The MRT was not persuaded to give much weight to the entries in the

cultivator column of 7, 7A and 12 extract of he subject land as the entries

pertaining to the years 1952-1953 and onwards appeared to have been

interpolated therein. Indeed the 7, 7A and 12 extract of the subject land

makes an interesting reading. The first entry was of the year 1986-1987. The

second was of the year 1987-1988 and the third was of the year 1988-1989.

However, in between the first and second entries, (for 1986-1987 and 1987-

1988), the entries for the year 1952-1953 and 1953-1954 appeared to have

been inserted. Likewise, in between second and third entries (for the year

1987-1988 and 1988-1989), an entry for the year 1954-1955 seemed to have



SSP                                                                  17/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

been inserted. Same pattern was followed till the year 1977-1978.

Surprisingly, the entries in the name of Anya Govind Patil seem to have been

entered for the years 1959-1960, 1960-1961 and 1961-1962, after the entry

for the year 1977-1978 in the name of Babu Pandu Patil.

22.   Ex-facie the entries in the cultivator's column in the record of rights of

the subject land do not warrant implicit reliance. It defies comprehension that

after the first entry in the year 1986-1987, there could have been entries for

the year 1952-1953 and 1953-1954. The insertion of the entries of cultivation

for the period 32 to 35 years ago, is simply inexplicable.

23.   It would be contextually relevant to note that, under Rules 29 and 30 of

the Maharashtra Land Revenue Record of Rights and Lands and Registers

(Preparation and Maintenance ) Rules, 1971 (“the Rules, 1971”),        provisions

have been made for making entries in the Register of Crops every year. The

Village Officer is expected to visit the fields and note the crops standing in the

fields and, thereafter, make the entries. Under Rule 31 of the Rules, 1971, the

Village Officer is enjoined to verify the person who is in actual possession of a

survey number and make entries in the Register of Persons in Possession

other than the persons who is deemed to be in possession, according to the

record of rights. Rule 32 warrants maintenance of Register of Tenancies by

the Talathi in Form No. XV for each agricultural year separately. The entries in



SSP                                                                  18/26
                                                                    wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

the register of the tenancies should be tested by the Circle Officer when he

examines the crops, and by other officers of higher rank.

24.     The aforesaid rules warrant the making of the entries in the Registers

and record of rights contemporaneously. Of necessity, the entries regarding

cultivation in the record of rights were required to be made year on year. An

entry for one year in the cultivator's column can never be followed by another

entry recording cultivation prior to 30 years. No presumption of correctness

can be attached to such entries in the record of rights.

25.     The learned President, MRT was justified in discarding the aforesaid

entries in the record of rights by placing reliance on the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs Fakhrul Hassan And

Ors.1 In the said case the Supreme Court has enunciated in no uncertain

terms that an entry made in the record of rights is open to the attack on the

ground that it was made fraudulently or surreptitiously. The observations in

paragraphs 14 and 15 are material and hence extracted below:

              “14.      It is true that the entries in the revenue record ought,
              generally, to be accepted at their face value and courts should
              not embark upon an appellate inquiry in to their correctness.
              But the presumption of correctness can apply only to genuine,
              not forged or fraudulent, entries. The distinction may be fine but
              it is real. The distinction is that one cannot challenge the


1   (1976) 3 SCC 642.

SSP                                                                        19/26
                                                                     wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

              correctness of what the entry is the revenue record states but
              the entry is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently or
              surreptitiously. Fraud and forgery rob a document of all its legal
              effect and cannot found a claim to possessory title.

              15.      In Amba Prasad Vs Abdul Noor Khan2, it was held by
              this Court that section 20 of the U.P. Act 1 of 1.951 does not
              require proof of actual possession and that its purpose is to
              eliminate inquiries into disputed possession by acceptance of
              the entries in the Khasra or Khatauni of 1356 Fasli. While
              commenting on this decision, this Court observed in Sonawati
              Vs Sri Ram and Anr3 that:

                       "the Civil Court in adjudging a claim of a person to
              the rights of an adhivasi is not called upon to make an
              enquiry whether the claimant was actually in possession of
              the land or held the right as an occupant: cases of fraud
              apart, the entry in the record alone is relevant". We have
              supplied the emphasis in order to show that the normal
              presumption of correctness attaching to entries in the
              revenue record, which by law constitute evidence of a legal
              title, is displaced by proof of fraud.”   (emphasis
              supplied)

26.     Such being the nature of the entries, in the record of rights of the

subject land, which formed the foundation of the claim of tenancy of Babu

Pandu Patil, the endeavour on behalf of the Petitioners to assail the legality

and validity of the order dated 30 November 1965 fixing the purchase price in

respect of the subject land in favour of Anya Govind Patil cannot be
2   AIR 1965 SC 54.
3   AIR 1968 SC 466.

SSP                                                                         20/26
                                                               wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

countenanced. On balance, Mutation Entry No. 1193 stands on a higher

pedestal then the claim of the Babu Pandu Patil. The former was certified on

the basis of Kabulayat which was verified by the certifying authority.

27.   The fact that the determination of the rights of the parties in the

previous proceedings, had attained finality also bears upon the challenge to

the impugned orders. As noted above, after the year 2010 the status of Anya

Govind Patil as the tenant in respect of the subject land was sought to be

questioned by the landlord as well as Babu Pandu Patil. In tenancy Case No.

52 of 2010, Babu Pandu Patil sought twin declarations. First, Babu Pandu

Patil was the tenant in respect of the subject land as he had been in

possession and cultivation thereof since prior to the Tiller's day, i.e. 1 st April

1957. Second, Anya Govind Patil (R5 therein) was never in possession and

cultivation of the subject land and, thus, was not a tenant in respect of the

said land. The ALT by a judgment and order dated 8 August 2011 dismissed

the said Application and expressly rejected the prayer that it be declared that

Anya Govind Patil was not a tenant in respect of the subject land. Evidently,

ALT had framed the issues whether Babu Pandu Patil was the tenant in

respect of the subject land and the mutation of name of Anya Govind Patil as

a tenant vide Mutation Entry No. 1193 was illegal. Both the issues were

answered against Babu Pandu Patil.



SSP                                                                   21/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

28.   Appeal No. 203 of 2011 preferred by the Babu Pandu Patil against the

said decision of ALT, came to be dismissed by the SDO by a judgment and

order dated 8th July 2013. Revision Application No. 536 of 2013 preferred by

Ram Babu Patil, the Petitioner No.1, against the said order dated 8 th July

2013, came be withdrawn.

29.   Mr. Karandikar was justified in canvassing a submission that the

withdrawal of Revision Application No. 536 of 2013 preceded the decision in

Revision Application No. 535 of 2013, whereby Tenancy Appeal No. 9 of 2012

was remanded back to SDO. Thus, the declaration made by the ALT in

Tenancy Case No. 52 of 2010 that Babu Pandu Patil was not a tenant in

respect of the subject land attained finality.

30.   In the other front, opened by the landlord, being Tenancy Case No 35 of

2010, seeking a declaration that Anya Govind Patil was not a tenant in

respect of the larger properties and for a direction to delete his name from

record of rights as tenant, initially by a judgment and order dated 31 January

2014, the name of Anya Govind Patil was ordered to be deleted from the

record of rights of the larger properties, except the subject land.

31.   In the Appeal preferred by the legal representatives of Anya Govind

Patil, being Tenancy Appeal No. 114 of 2014, the SDO set aside the said

order and restored the order dated 30 November 1965 passed by the ALT


SSP                                                                   22/26
                                                              wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948.It does not appear that

Respondent Nos. 14 to 17 had challenged the said judgment and order in

Tenancy Appeal No. 114 of 2014. Resultantly in the proceedings instituted at

the instance of the landlord also, the tenancy of Anya Govind Patil was

reaffirmed.

32.      In the face of the aforesaid orders, it was not open for Babu Pandu Patil

and his successors-in-interest to again agitate the issue of tenancy rights in

respect of the subject land.The twin declarations that Babu Pandu Patil was

not the tenant and Anya Govind Patil was the tenant, in a sense, sealed the

issue.

33.      The learned President, MRT was thus within his rights in holding that

the challenge to the order dated 30 November 1965 passed under Section

32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948 and the claim for determination of the purchase

price under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948 in favour of Babu Pandu

Patil, after those orders attained finality, were barred by the principles of res

judicata.

34.      It is well-recognized that, the principle of res judicata applies to the

proceedings before the quasi-judicial authorities and also binds them. A useful

reference in this context can be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in

the case of Faime Makers Private Limited Vs District Deputy Registrar,


SSP                                                                  23/26
                                                               wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

Cooperative Societies (3), Mumbai and Ors,4 wherein the legal position was

reiterated with reference to the previous precedents. The observations in

paragraphs 23 to 26 read as under :

           “23.       It has been settled by this Court that the principle of
           res judicata applies to and binds quasi-judicial authorities. This
           Court in Ujjam Bai Vs State of U.P.5 has taken the view that
           principles of res judicata equally apply to quasi-judicial bodies.
           Whenever a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal gives a finding on
           law or fact, its findings cannot be impeached collaterally or in a
           second round and are binding until reversed in appeal or
           revision or by way of writ proceedings.

           24.The characteristic attribute of a judicial act or decision is
           that it binds, whether right or wrong. Thus, any error, either of
           fact or law, committed by such bodies cannot be controverted
           otherwise by way of an appeal or revision or a writ unless the
           erroneous determination relates to the jurisdictional matter of
           that body.

           25. This position has been further reinforced in Abdul Kuddus
           Vs Union of India6 which relies upon Ujjam Bai (supra). In
           Abdul Kuddus (Supra), this Court held that the opinion by the
           Foreigners Tribunal is a quasi-judicial order. Therefore, it would
           be incorrect to hold that the opinion of the Tribunal and/or the
           consequential order passed by the registering Authority would
           not operate as res judicata. Further, it was established that any
4   (2025) 5 sCC 772.
5   1962 SCC OnLine SC 8.
6   (2019) 6 SCC 604.

SSP                                                                   24/26
                                                            wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

         quasi- judicial Authority would not ordinarily have the power to
         unilaterally take a contrary view taken by a coordinate or
         predecessor authority at an early point in time.

         26.From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that once a
         Competent Authority (quasi-judicial in nature) settles an issue,
         that determination attains finality unless it is set aside in
         accordance with law.”              (emphasis supplied)


35.   The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, on the one hand,

the claim of Babu Pandu Patil based on the entries in the cultivator's column

of the record and rights of the subject land was fraught with inherent

infirmities as those entries appeared to have been surreptitiously inserted

randomly. On the other hand, in view of the previous judgments and orders in

the proceedings to which Babu Pandu Patil was a party, the question as to

who was the tenant in respect of the subject land was directly and

substantially in issue, and was conclusively decided against him and thus the

fresh proceeding under Section 32G of the MT & AL Act, 1948, was barred by

the principles of res judicata.

36.   For the forgoing reasons this Court does not find any infirmity in the

impugned order.

37.   Resultantly, the Petitions deserve to be dismissed.

38.   Hence, the following order :


SSP                                                                25/26
                                                                                 wp 10982 of 2026-1.doc

                                                                 ORDER

                               (i)     Writ Petitions stand dismissed.

                               (ii)    Rule discharged.

                               (iii)   No costs.




                                                                         ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                               26/26



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 10/10/2026 16:21:05