Bombay High Court

JAU PADU KALE AND ANR.versusKASHA HASHA KALE AND ORS.

Decided: 7 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petitioners lack locus standi to claim tenancy, and the High Court will not interfere with the concurrent factual findings of the lower authorities.

Summary

The petitioners, Jau Padu Kale and an associate, claimed tenancy rights over agricultural land, alleging they were family members of the respondents who had been granted ownership through 32‑G and 32‑M proceedings. They challenged the dismissal of their Section 70(b) tenancy application by the Tahsildar and subsequent adverse orders of the Sub‑Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The respondents contended that the petitioners had been duly notified during the 32‑G process, raised no objections, and failed to establish any familial or possession rights, even in a civil suit. The Court examined the procedural history, noting that the petitioners initiated Section 70(b) proceedings long after the 32‑G proceedings concluded and that the lower authorities had found no evidence of possession or a valid family claim. Relying on the principle that the writ jurisdiction cannot disturb concurrent factual findings of specialized tribunals, the Court held that the petitioners lacked locus standi. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioners, as alleged family members, have a right to tenancy under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 after the land was vested in the respondents through 32‑G and 32‑M proceedings.
Whether the delay in filing the Section 70(b) application bars the petitioners from obtaining relief.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the Tahsildar, Sub‑Divisional Officer, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a writ petition.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 — s. 32-G, 32-M, 70(b)

Subjects

tenancy rights
land revenue
Section 70(b) proceedings
32-G proceedings
locus standi
writ jurisdiction
family ownership claim
possession evidence

Judgment

                                                                        18 WP 1212-06 @.doc



                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2006

                   Jau Padu Kale and Anr.                                    ...Petitioners
                             Versus
SNEHA
                   Kasha Hasha Kale and Ors.                                 ...Respondents
NITIN
CHAVAN                                              ****
Digitally signed
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN       Mr. Yash Dewal i/b Mr. Kailash Dewal for the Petitioners.
Date: 2026.09.07
19:56:46 +0530     Ms. Anita Bhaktwani for Respondents.
                                                    ****
                                            CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                               DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                   P.C. :

                   1.             Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.


                   2.             Invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
                   Petitioners are challenging the Judgment and order dated 22.09.1999
                   passed by the President, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai,
                   Camp at Aurangabad (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Tenancy Revision No.
                   67 of 1997. By the impugned order, the Revision Application filed by
                   Petitioners is dismissed.


                   3.             The Petitioners filed proceedings under Section 70(b) of the
                   Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (as it then was). The
                   Tahsildar/Agricultural Lands Tribunal (‘ALT’ for short), Wada, who
                   heard the said application, rejected the claim of tenancy, by order dated
                   28.01.1993, holding that the subject matter land is already sold in
                   favour of the Respondents under 32-G proceedings.


                   4.             The Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No. 24 of 1993 before the
                   Sub-Divisional Officer, Jawhar Division, Jawhar (‘the said SDO’ for


                   Sneha Chavan                                                               1
                                                     18 WP 1212-06 @.doc



short). The said SDO, by its order dated 06.05.1995, dismissed the
appeal confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar.


5.             The Petitioners then filed the Tenancy Revision No. 67 of 1997
in the said Tribunal, which dismissed it under impugned order.


6.             Thus, challenging concurrent findings on the inquiry under
section 70(b) of the said Act, the Petitioners are before this Court.


7.             On 07.08.2006, the petition was admitted by granting Rule
and issue of delay was left open. Record shows that no interim relief
was granted in favour of the Petitioners.


8.             Learned Counsel Mr. Dewal appearing for the Petitioners
submitted that if the judgment of the Tahsildar is minutely observed, it
can be seen from suggestions given to witnesses of the parties, that the
case of Petitioners belonging to same family was clearly borne out and
therefore it was necessary for the Tahsildar to consider the said
contention by holding the Petitioners entitled to tenancy. He submitted
that the Petitioners being part of the family of Respondents were
entitled to an order holding them as tenants. He also submitted that the
oral evidence of witnesses Mr. Bhoir and Mr. Kadav have not been
properly appreciated, who have stated that they have seen the
Applicants tilling the subject land.


9.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents
supported the impugned order, contending inter alia that the Petitioners
filed 70(b) proceedings after long 18 years of 32-G proceedings
culminating into issuance of 32-M certificate in favour of the



Sneha Chavan                                                               2
                                                    18 WP 1212-06 @.doc



Respondents. She submitted that the notice was duly served upon the
Petitioners/their predecessors during 32-G proceedings and their
belated attempt has been rightly rejected. She also submitted that
Petitioners have not been able to establish their right as family
members, even in the Civil Court.


10.            Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, this is not a fit case to interfere for following reasons.


11.            Petitioners claim to be family members of the Respondents.
While considering the application under Section 70(b) of the said Act,
the Tahsildar has held that when the proceedings under 32-G of the said
Act were undertaken, notices were issued to the Petitioners, however,
no objection was raised by them at the relevant time. It is not disputed
that 32-G proceedings were over and 32-M certificate was also issued
sometime in 1979 in favour of the Respondents and long time thereafter
in 1989, 70(b) proceedings have been initiated.


12.            The Tahsildar, on appreciation of evidence, held that there
appears to be dispute about partition between the parties which cannot
be decided by the Authorities under the said Act and therefore, parties
may get their rights adjudicated in Civil Court. It is further held that the
Petitioners have not got their names mutated in time and have not
objected during 32-G proceedings and have not filed appeal in time.


13.            It has come on record during the hearing before the concerned
SDO, that Civil Suit No. 182 of 1989 was filed between the parties,
which was decided on 24.03.1995 and no adjudication in favour of the
Petitioners has been pointed out.


Sneha Chavan                                                              3
                                                     18 WP 1212-06 @.doc




14.            Perusal of the impugned order of the Tribunal shows that it
has clearly held that there is no evidence to show that the Petitioners
are in possession of the subject matter land. It is also observed that the
Petitioners have not challenged the order passed under Section 32-G
proceedings during the process of fixing purchase price and it has
become final and Respondents have become owners. The Tribunal has
also held that Petitioners have not proved the alleged relationship by
adducing oral or documentary evidence.


15.            It has further come on record that the Petitioners have not
challenged the order passed by ALT declaring Respondent Nos. 1 to 12
as owners under Section 32-G of the said Act and as such the Applicants
do not have any locus standi to file the present application.


16.            In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the limited writ
jurisdiction of this Court, it is not possible to interfere with concurrent
findings of facts. From the perusal of all the orders passed by lower
authorities, it is seen that most probable view is taken based on material
available on record. Hence, there is no reason to interfere.


17.            Writ Petition in accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No
order as to costs.


18.            All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.


                                             (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                               4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…