Bombay High Court
ABDULBARI GULAM HUSSEN TUNGEKAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The MRT correctly upheld the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order, finding that the predecessor‑in‑title was a tenant on the Tillers Day and therefore a deemed purchaser under Section 32, rendering the ALT’s order untenable.
Summary
The petitioners challenged a judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) that upheld a Sub‑Divisional Officer's order deleting the name of Respondent No. 4 from the record of rights of a 60‑are land in Raigad. The petitioners claimed they were the owners and argued that the predecessor‑in‑title, Bhima Mahadev Gharat, had never cultivated the land and that the ALT had erred by not impleading the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The Sub‑Divisional Officer set aside the ALT order, holding that Mutation Entry No. 157, certified on 21 March 1957, established Bhima Gharat as a tenant on the Tillers Day, making him a deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The MRT affirmed this view, noting that the mutation entry had never been challenged and that the ALT proceedings were defective for not impleading the heirs. The court agreed with the MRT, stating that the statutory consequences of Section 32 applied and that the ALT’s order was untenable. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The validity of the ALT order under Section 70b of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 when legal heirs were not impleaded.
- Whether Mutation Entry No. 157, certified before the Tillers Day, establishes the predecessor‑in‑title as a tenant and thus a deemed purchaser under Section 32.
- The propriety of the MRT and Sub‑Divisional Officer’s interference with the ALT’s order based on the site inspection and mutation records.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 32, 70b
Subjects
- mutation
- tenancy
- deemed purchaser
- Tillers Day
- Section 70b
- Section 32
- land ownership
- legal heirs
- revision
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
Judgment
12-WP11027-2026.DOC
Santosh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11027 OF 2026
Abdulbari Gulam Hussen Tungekar And
Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors …Respondents
Mr. Pradeep Thorat, i/b Bhalchandra Shinde, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATED: 28th AUGUST, 2026
SANTOSH
SUBHASH Order:-
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
SANTOSH
SUBHASH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.09.03
21:39:56 +0530
1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Thorat, the learned Counsel for the
Petitioners.
2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order
dated 23rd June, 2026 passed by the learned Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, (“MRT”) in Tenancy
Revision Application No. TENANCY/REV/RAIGAD/L-08/2024,
whereby the revision application preferred by the Petitioners
against a judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer in Tenancy Appeal No. 83/2022 came to be dismissed by
affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer.
3. The Petitioners preferred an application under Section 70b
1/5
12-WP11027-2026.DOC
of the Act, 1948 before the ALT asserting, inter alia, that they
were the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 258/2,
admeasuring 60 Are, situated at Village Vindhane, Taluka Uran,
District Raigad ("the subject land"). The name of Bhima
Mahadev Hasha Gharat, the predecessor-in-title of the
Respondent No. 4 was wrongly mutated to the record of rights of
the suit land as a tenant thereof. The deceased Bhima never
cultivated the suit land. Nor the deceased Bhima was
cultivating the suit land on 1st April, 1957 on the Tillers' Day.
4. By an order dated 21st April, 2022, the ALT was persuaded
to allow the application on the basis of a spot inspection carried
out by the Circle Officer on 6 th March, 2020, which, inter alia,
revealed that the purported tenant Bhimabai Gharat has passed
away prior to 25 years. Her son, Krishna Gharat, was not
cultivating the suit land, and one Gajanan Sakharam Gharat
was in actual cultivation of the suit land.
5. The Tahsildar/ALT, Uran, declared that, the Respondent
No. 4 was not the tenant in respect of the suit land and directed
the deletion of the name of the Respondent No. 4 from the
record of rights of the suit land.
6. The Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Sub-
Divisional Officer. By a judgment and order dated 7 th November,
2/5
12-WP11027-2026.DOC
2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order passed by
the ALT observing, inter alia, that Mutation Entry No. 157
recording the name of the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent
No. 4 as the tenant in respect of the suit land was certified on
21st March, 1957. Thus, the predecessor-in-title of the
Respondent No. 4 became a deemed purchaser of the suit land
on the Tillers Day. The Petitioners failed to bring on record any
material to show that the said mutation entry was set aside.
Thus, the ALT was in error in declaring that the predecessor-in-
title of the Respondent No. 4 was not a tenant in respect of the
suit land. Moreover, the ALT had passed the order against a
dead person without impleading her legal representatives.
7. In the revision application, the MRT found no reason to
interfere with the order passed by SDO. The learned Member,
MRT, reiterated that Mutation Entry No. 157, which was
certified before the Tillers Day, was never challenged.
Furthermore, the ALT had proceeded with the hearing of the
application under Section 70b without impleading the legal
heirs of the deceased tenant, though the said fact was brought
on record of the ALT.
8. Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners,
submitted that the learned Member, MRT, as well as the Sub-
3/5
12-WP11027-2026.DOC
Divisional Officer, were in error in interfering with the order
passed by the ALT. Emphasis was laid on a purported statement
made by Krishna Gharat to the effect that his mother Bhimabai
passed away prior to 25 years and they had not been in
cultivation of the suit land since prior to 48 years.
9. It could not be, however, controverted that the proceedings
were continued by the ALT without impleading the legal
representatives of Bhimabai Gharat on record.
10. Even on the merits of the matter, from the perusal of the
material on record, it becomes abundantly clear that the name
of Mahadev Hasha Gharat was mutated to the record of rights of
the suit land as a tenant thereof for the years 1954-1955 and
1955-1956. Mutation Entry No. 157, certified on 21 st March,
1957, clearly records that the name of Bhima Mahadev Hasha
Gharat was mutated to the suit land as an ordinary tenant. The
record of rights of the suit land thus makes it clear that the
predecessors-in-title of the Respondent No. 4 were in cultivation
of the suit land since 1954, and on the Tillers Day, Bhima
Mahadev Hasha Gharat was in cultivation of the suit land. Once
this fact becomes explicitly clear, the statutory consequences
envisaged by the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act,
1948 follow automatically. The tenant who was in cultivation of
4/5
12-WP11027-2026.DOC
the land on the Tillers Day becomes its deemed purchaser. A
useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi
vs. State of Bombay1.
11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the MRT as well as the
Sub-Divisional Officer were well within their rights in interfering
with a wholly untenable order passed by the ALT on the basis of
site inspection carried out in the year 2020.
12. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
1 AIR 1959 SC 459.
5/5
Checking your session…