HANUMAN BUDHAJI SORKHADE AND ORSversusSHRI ANANT LAXMAN KHANE AND ORS

                                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc



                                                                              Sayali
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                  WRIT PETITION NO.2143 OF 2015
SAYALI                                        WITH
DEEPAK                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO.13300 OF 2025
UPASANI
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK         1. Hanuman Budhaji Sorkhade
UPASANI
Date: 2026.08.28         For self and as Power of Attorney
12:03:59 +0530
                         Holder of Petitioner Nos. 2 to 5.

                      2. Shri Ramchandra Budhaji Sorkhade

                      3. Shri Bandu Budhaji Sorkhade

                      4. Narayan Budhaji Sorkhade

                      5. Shri Gurunath Budhaji Sorkhade
                         All R/o Dawadi, Taluka – Kalyan,
                         District – Thane.                    … Petitioners
                                 V/s.
                      1. Shri Anant Laxman Khane

                      2. Shri Bhaga Charu Khane
                         Since deceased through Legal Heirs   …

                      2a. Bhau Bhagya Khane

                      2b. Dilip Bhagya Khane

                      2c. Sheubai Rambhau Bangar

                      2d. Ramabai Ganpati Shelar @
                          Ramabai Ganpat Shelar
                         (Died on 13 July 2020, Through
                          her Legal Heirs)

                      2d/1. Rajesh Ganpat Shelar,



                                                    1
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


 2d/2. Rakesh Ganpat Shelar,
 2d/3. Deepa Tushar Solase,
 2d/4. Jyoti Pradeep Salekar
      Sr. No. 2d/1 to 2d/4, R/a.
      Morivalipada, B Cabin Road,
      Near Hanuman Temple,
      Tal. Ambernath, Dist. Thane
      421501.

 2e.   Vijaya Yashwant Dabhane

 2f.   Usha Dilip Basare

 2g.   Lakshmibai Waman Telange

 2g/1. Sunil Waman Telange

 2g/2. Anil Waman Telange

 2g/3. Vandana Rohidas Shelar

 2g/4. Babita Bhim Vyapari

 3.     Shri Antone Frrancis Golmes

 4.     Smt. Krishnabai Shivaji Bhoir

 5.     Smt. Thakubai Budhaji
        Sorkhade (Deleted)                     ...Respondents

Mr. Ameya Pitale, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Aniket Ranade, for Respondent No. 1.

                 CORAM                   : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                 RESERVED ON             : AUGUST 24, 2026

                 PRONOUNCED ON : AUGUST 28, 2026




                                2
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc




JUDGMENT :
1.   By filing the present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has challenged
the judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Thane, in Revision Application No.TNC/REV/297/B/2010 dated
21 April 2010.

2.   The facts which have led to filing of the present Petition
are as follows. The land in question is Survey No. 80,
admeasuring 0.71.03 Hectares and assessed at Rs.14.44/-
situated at Village Dawadi, Taluka Kalyan, District Thane. The
predecessor of the Petitioner, namely Jaitya Dharma Sorkhade,
was a tenant in respect of the said land and his name was
accordingly entered in the village records. Initially, by Mutation
Entry No.214, his name was entered as a protected tenant in
pursuance of the circulars issued by the State Government for
recording the names of protected tenants. The said entry was
made on the basis of cultivation shown from the year 1946-47.
Though the mutation entry was made in the year 1954, it was
intended to give effect to the provisions relating to protected
tenancy. Therefore, the fact that the entry was made in 1954
does not mean that the tenancy commenced in that year. The
entry related to the cultivation of the land by the said tenant
from a period prior to the year 1946. On 20 February 1955, by
Mutation Entry No.233, the name of the heir, namely Budhya
Jaitya Sorkhade, was entered in the record. Subsequently, on 25



                                3
                                                       WP-2143-15-J.doc


January 1976, by Mutation Entry No.408, the names of the
revision applicants came to be recorded. The said Mutation
Entry shows that, apart from the land in question, certain other
lands which had been held by the predecessor of the Petitioners
either under the Tenancy Act or by private ownership were
entered in the names of the Petitioners after an heirship inquiry.
On this basis, the purchase price in respect of the land in
question, as well as some other lands held by the Petitioners
from the same owner, namely Antone Francis Golmes, was fixed
in favour of the Petitioners., in the year 1988, an application
came to be filed on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 seeking a
declaration that they were tenants in respect of the land.

3.     At the initial stage, the Petitioners were not made parties
to the said proceedings, although they were necessary and
proper parties having regard to their recorded interest in the
land. The application was initially rejected by the Trial Court.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal, in which the Sub-
Divisional Officer remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Even    after   remand,   the   Tahsildar   again   dismissed     the
application. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 then preferred Tenancy
Appeal No.20 of 2000. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the
said appeal and remanded the matter for a fresh trial. After the
second remand, on 31 October 2008, the Tahsildar and
Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan, passed an order declaring
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to be tenants in respect of the land in
question. The Petitioners challenged the said order. However, on



                                 4
                                                       WP-2143-15-J.doc


21 April 2010, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, dismissed the
appeal filed by the Petitioners and confirmed the order passed
by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan. Being
aggrieved by these orders, in the year 2010, the Petitioners
approached the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, by
filing Revision Application No.TNC/REV/297/B/2010.

4.    On 5 February 2014, the learned President of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the said Revision
Application. The Tribunal mainly held that, on the basis of
preponderance of probabilities, the orders passed by the
Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Officer could not be said to be
perverse or to have been based upon inadmissible evidence. It is
against the said orders that the present Petition has been filed by
the Petitioner.

5.    Mr. Ameya Pitale, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, submitted that the predecessor of the Petitioners,
namely Jaitya Dharma Sorkhade, was a tenant in respect of the
land and his name was accordingly entered in the village record.
He submitted that, by Mutation Entry No.214, the name of
Jaitya Dharma Sorkhade was entered as a protected tenant in
accordance with the circulars issued by the State Government
for recording such names. According to him, the said entry was
based upon the cultivation shown from 1946-47. Though the
entry was made in the year 1954, it was made for giving effect
to the provisions relating to protected tenancy and, therefore,
the entry had to be understood with reference to the cultivation


                                 5
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


of the land by the tenant from a period prior to 1946. He
submitted that, by subsequent Mutation Entry No.233 dated 20
February 1955, the name of the heir, namely Budhya Jaitya
Sorkhade, was duly entered., by Mutation Entry No.408 dated
25 January 1976, the names of the revision applicants were
entered. According to the learned Advocate, this Mutation Entry
shows that, apart from the land in question, other lands held by
the predecessor of the Petitioners either under the Tenancy Act
or by private ownership were entered in the names of the
Petitioners after an heirship inquiry. The learned Advocate
submitted that the authorities below, as well as the Tribunal,
failed to properly consider the fact that the names of the revision
applicants were subsequently removed by Mutation Entry
No.501 in the year 1987-88 and that, by the same entry, the
names of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were inserted. According to
him, the said entry was made in clear violation of law.

6.    He submitted that, since Mutation Entry No.501 was
subsequently set aside by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan
Division, it ought to follow that the names of Respondent Nos.1
and 2 could not be treated as having been validly recorded in
the 7/12 extract. According to the Petitioners, Respondent Nos.1
and 2 took advantage of the insertion of their names in the
Other Rights Column and filed the application in the year 1988
to establish their alleged tenancy rights. The learned Advocate
submitted that, while considering the claim of Respondent Nos.1
and 2, the authorities failed to take into account that the



                                 6
                                                       WP-2143-15-J.doc


purchase price in respect of the land had been fixed in favour of
the revision applicants long before the filing of the said
application. Upon payment of the purchase price, a 32M
certificate was issued in favour of the revision applicants. It was
therefore submitted that the completed proceedings under
Section 32G and the issuance of the 32M certificate were
important circumstances which could not have been ignored by
the authorities. On these grounds, the learned Advocate
submitted that the impugned orders deserved to be quashed and
set aside.

7.    Mr. Aniket Ranade, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.1, submitted that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
the original applicants in 70(b) Case No.20/2002. The said
proceedings were originally filed in the year 1988 and, after
remand, the case was renumbered twice. By the said application,
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 sought a declaration that they were
tenants in respect of the suit property. He submitted that on 2
December 1954, Mutation Entry No.214 was posted and the
name of Jaitya Dharma Patil was entered as a “Protected Tenant”
in four properties, including Survey No.80., on 20 February
1955, Mutation Entry No.233 was posted and the name of Jaitya
Dharma Patil's son, Budhya, was entered, as Jaitya Dharma Patil
had died about three years earlier. Notices under Section 32G
were issued, returnable on 25 June 1963, but only in respect of
two properties, namely Survey No.77 Part and Survey No.78
Part. The other two properties, namely Survey No.80 and Survey



                                 7
                                                   WP-2143-15-J.doc


No.94, were deleted from the notice. On 25 June 1963, Budhya
Jaitu Sorkhade appeared before the Tahsildar and Agricultural
Lands Tribunal, Kalyan, and stated that he had no concern with
Survey No.80 and Survey No.94. He expressed his willingness to
purchase Survey No.77 Part and Survey No.78 Part. On the same
day, the statement of the Talathi was recorded. The Talathi
stated that Budhya Jaitu Sorkhade was cultivating Survey No.77
Part and Survey No.78 Part at Village Dawdi, Taluka Kalyan,
District Thane, as a tenant. On 25 June 1963, the Tahsildar and
Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan, passed an order fixing the
purchase price of Survey No.77 Part and Survey No.78 Part at
Rs.749/-. The said amount was to be paid in 12 instalments
commencing from 25 June 1964 and ending on 25 June 1975.
However, Budhya Jaitu Sorkhade did not pay the purchase price
during his lifetime.

8.    Thereafter, on 25 June 1976, Mutation Entry No.408 was
posted after the death of Budhya Jaitu Sorkhade, and the names
of his legal heirs were entered in the 7/12 extracts of the
properties. Subsequently, on 29 October 1987, the names of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were entered as “Tenants” in respect of
Survey No.80 and the name of Ramchandra Budhya Sorkhade
was deleted. In the year 1988, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed an
application under Section 70(b), seeking a declaration of their
tenancy in respect of Survey No.80. The Tahsildar, Kalyan,
dismissed the said application. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed
Tenancy Appeal No.52/1994. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane,



                               8
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for making a fresh enquiry.
On 26 March 1994, after such enquiry, the Tahsildar, Kalyan,
again rejected the claim of tenancy made by Respondent Nos.1
and 2. It was at this stage that the Petitioner approached the
Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan, for depositing the purchase
price which had been fixed by the order dated 25 June 1963.
The Agricultural Lands Tribunal calculated interest on the
original purchase price of Rs.749/- and re-fixed the amount at
Rs.959/-. From the record, it can be seen that the amount of
Rs.959/- was fixed only in respect of Survey No.77 Part and
Survey No.78 Part. However, after the said amount of Rs.959/-
was paid, a 32M certificate came to be issued in respect of four
properties, namely Survey No.77 Part, Survey No.78 Part, Survey
No.80 and Survey No.94.

9.    In the meantime, Respondent No.1 challenged the order
dated 26 March 1994 passed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural
Lands Tribunal by filing Tenancy Appeal No.20/2000. The Sub-
Divisional Officer, Thane, partly allowed the said appeal and
remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Petitioner filed
Tenancy Revision No.3986/2002 challenging the order of the
Sub-Divisional Officer, but subsequently withdrew the said
Revision. In the third round of enquiry under Section 70(b), the
Tahsildar, Kalyan, allowed the application after remand and, by
order dated 31 October 2008, declared Respondent Nos.1 and 2
to be tenants in respect of Survey No.80. The said order was
challenged by filing Tenancy Appeal No.13/2009. The Sub-



                                9
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


Divisional Officer, Thane, dismissed the appeal by order dated
21 April 2010. The President of the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal confirmed both the orders dated 31 October 2008 and
21 April 2010 by dismissing Tenancy Revision No.297/B/2010
by the impugned order dated 5 February 2014.

10.   The learned Advocate submitted that the Petitioner has not
produced or annexed any order under Section 32G with the
Petition because there was in fact no such order in respect of
Survey No.80. According to him, the purchase price was fixed
only in respect of two properties, namely Survey No.77 Part and
Survey No.78 Part. He submitted that the entire case of the
Petitioner is based upon the 32M certificate dated 16 April 1994.
However, on a proper reading of the said 32M certificate, it
becomes clear that the purchase price of Rs.959/- was fixed only
in respect of Survey No.77 Part and Survey No.78 Part. No
purchase price in respect of Survey No.80 or Survey No.94 was
ever fixed under Section 32G. Therefore, according to the
learned Advocate, there could be no valid question of issuing a
certificate under Section 32M in respect of Survey No.80 or
Survey No.94 on the basis of the said proceedings.

11.   The learned Advocate submitted that the President of the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal had correctly observed that
Survey No.80 was never purchased by the predecessor of the
present Petitioner, namely Budhya, during his lifetime. He
submitted that the declaration of tenancy in favour of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was based upon a Report which was


                               10
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


signed by some of the landlords. According to him, no
satisfactory or proper explanation was given as to why the
landlords had signed the said Report, which recorded that
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were in possession of Survey No.80 as
tenants. He therefore submitted that the findings recorded by
the authorities and the Tribunal were proper and supported by
the material on record and, consequently, the present Petition
deserved to be dismissed.

      Reasons and Analysis

12.   I have considered the Petition, the submissions made by
the learned Advocates appearing for both sides, the proceedings
which were before the authorities below and the impugned
order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Therefore,
the question is whether the finding given by the Tahsildar and
Agricultural Lands Tribunal and confirmed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tenants of the
disputed land, is such that this Court should interfere with that
finding while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India.

13.   At the outset, one factual aspect appearing from the record
needs to be noticed. On the first page of the impugned order
passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Survey No.18 is
mentioned. However, if the whole proceedings are seen,
including the mutation entries, the application under Section
70(b), the submissions of both sides and the discussion in the




                               11
                                                       WP-2143-15-J.doc


later part of the same order, it is clear that the actual dispute is
regarding Survey No.80. The earlier history of the proceedings is
required to be seen. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had first
approached the tenancy authority in the year 1988 seeking a
declaration that they were tenants. Their application was
dismissed. They then filed an appeal and the matter was
remanded. Even after remand, their claim was again rejected.,
Tenancy Appeal No.20 of 2000 was allowed and the matter was
again sent back for considering Form No.4 and the panchanama.
The Revision filed by the present Petitioners against that order
was subsequently withdrawn, the Tahsildar and Agricultural
Lands Tribunal again considered the matter and, by order dated
31 October 2008, declared Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as tenants.
The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer on 21 April 2010., the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal dismissed Tenancy Revision No.297/B/2010 on 5
February 2014. These facts are found in the impugned
judgment. It is necessary to notice that the present Petitioners
were not parties to the proceedings when the first order of
remand was passed. However, they applied for being joined as
parties. Their application was allowed and they participated in
the proceedings after the first remand. Therefore, when the
matter was considered by the Tahsildar, the persons who are
now claiming interest in the land had an opportunity to place
their case before the authority and to produce the material and
evidence which they wanted to rely upon.




                                12
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


14.   The main submission of the learned Advocate for the
Petitioner is that the predecessor of the Petitioners, namely
Jaitya Dharma Patil, was recorded as a protected tenant by
Mutation Entry No.214 dated 2 December 1954. It is submitted
that Mutation Entry No.233 dated 20 February 1955 recorded
the name of Budhya Jaitu Sorkhade as his heir and later
Mutation Entry No.408 dated 25 January 1976 recorded the
names of the legal heirs. It is submitted that proceedings under
Section 32G resulted in fixation of the purchase price and, after
the purchase price was paid, a certificate under Section 32M
was issued.

15.   According to the Petitioner, all this material shows the
Petitioner's interest in the land and, therefore, there was no
proper basis to declare Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as tenants.
However, there is some difficulty in accepting this submission
because of the manner in which Mutation Entry No.214 appears
from the record. The learned Member of the Tribunal noticed
that Mutation Entry No.214 dated 2 December 1954 records
Jaitya Dharma Patil as a protected tenant. But Mutation Entry
No.233 dated 20 February 1955 states that Jaitya Dharma Patil
had died about three years earlier and, therefore, the name of
his son Budhya Jaitu Sorkhade was entered as his heir. Thus,
there is an apparent difference between the two entries. If Jaitya
had died about three years before 20 February 1955, then the
entry dated 2 December 1954 showing him as cultivating the
land requires some consideration. This is not a doubt created



                               13
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


without any basis. It comes from the revenue entries. Therefore,
the Tribunal was justified in observing that Mutation Entry
No.214 could not be treated as sufficient proof of tenancy
without considering the other material.

16.   The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has relied upon
Mutation Entry No.408 dated 25 January 1976. This entry
records the heirs of Budhya Sorkhade in respect of several lands.
But this entry does not decide the question which was before the
authority under Section 70(b), namely whether Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 were tenants of Survey No.80. A mutation entry
records a change in the revenue record. Merely because a
person's name is entered in the record, it cannot decide every
dispute regarding the status of that person. Therefore, the
authorities were required to consider the entire material and
could not decide the question only on the basis of Mutation
Entry No.408.

17.   The more important submission of the Petitioner is
regarding Sections 32G and 32M. The Petitioner relies upon the
certificate under Section 32M and submits that the purchase
price had been fixed and paid. On the other hand, Respondent
No.1 has specifically submitted that no order under Section 32G
was ever passed in respect of Survey No.80. According to
Respondent No.1, the proceedings under Section 32G related
only to Survey No.77 Part and Survey No.78 Part and the
purchase price of Rs.749/-, which was later recalculated as
Rs.959/-, was fixed only in respect of those two lands. This


                               14
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


submission is found in the material placed before the Court.

18.   The record of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shows
that the dispute regarding the Section 32G proceedings is a real
dispute. In paragraph 4 of the impugned order, the Tribunal
considered the mutation entries and other documents. The
entries relied upon by the Petitioners were considered along
with the other material. More importantly, the case of the
Respondent was that there was no fixation of purchase price
under Section 32G in respect of Survey No.80. Therefore, merely
producing a document described as a 32M certificate does not
conclude the matter.

19.   The actual question before the tenancy authority was
whether Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were tenants in respect of
Survey No.80. The enquiry under Section 70(b) is required to
decide the question of tenancy on the basis of the material
placed before the authority.

20.   On this aspect, the material is not as one-sided as the
Petitioner submits. The 7/12 extracts of 1987-88 were before the
Tribunal. The impugned order records that the names of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared in the Other Rights and
cultivation columns to the extent of one-half share each and that
paddy was shown to have been grown. Their names were
recorded as tenants of Survey No.80 by Mutation Entry No.501
dated 29 October 1987. This entry was certified on 5 February
1988. Therefore, the case of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not




                               15
                                                     WP-2143-15-J.doc


only a claim made for the first time in their application. There
was some revenue material existing even before the application,
which was required to be considered.

21.   The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has challenged
Mutation Entry No.501. It is submitted that the name of the
Petitioner's predecessor was deleted and the names of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were inserted on the basis of Hissa
Form No.4. It is submitted that even earlier an attempt was
made to enter their names through Mutation Entry No.125
dated 27 March 1977, but that entry was cancelled because
Hissa Form No.12 was not available for verification. This aspect
was considered by the revenue authorities. The Tribunal noticed
that the Additional Commissioner had examined the challenge
to Mutation Entry No.501. The Additional Commissioner
observed that there was no Consolidation Scheme available and
that Hissa Forms Nos.4 and 12 were not available in the record.
The Tribunal noticed that if Hissa Forms Nos.4 and 12 had
actually been prepared for division of a survey number, there
would ordinarily be some material regarding measurement and
the necessary notices. In the absence of such supporting
material, the Tribunal agreed with the view of the Sub-Divisional
Officer that the remaining evidence should be considered. In my
view, this approach cannot be said to be unreasonable. Mutation
Entry No.501 cannot be treated as conclusive proof of tenancy.
At the same time, its existence cannot be ignored. The proper
course was to see whether the said entry received support from



                               16
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


other independent material. The Tribunal did consider the
remaining material.

22.   There is another important circumstance. The impugned
order records that the Revision Applicants did not produce
assessment receipts, rent receipts or other documents to show
that they were cultivating the disputed land. This was noticed by
the Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the impugned order. When both
sides are claiming tenancy and cultivation, the absence of any
contemporaneous document from the Petitioners showing their
actual cultivation becomes a relevant circumstance. It may not
be enough to reject their case, but when considered with the
other evidence, it certainly affects the weight which can be given
to their claim. The learned Advocate for the Respondent
submitted that the scope of enquiry under Section 70(b) is to
decide, on the basis of the material placed before the authority,
whether the applicant is a tenant or not. This submission is
correct to this extent. The authority is required to consider the
relevant revenue entries, cultivation records, documents,
panchanama and oral evidence and decide the statutory
question. The enquiry cannot be decided only by looking at one
mutation entry or one certificate and ignoring the remaining
material. The oral evidence is required to be considered.
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 entered the witness box. They
examined two witnesses, namely Gorakshanath Jairam Patil and
Gajanan Shankar Patil. The impugned order records that both
witnesses were residents of the same village and were adjoining



                               17
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


landlords. The Petitioners challenged their evidence on the
ground of political differences. The Tribunal noticed that both
witnesses had admitted the political differences and the fact that
there was no regular interaction with the Revision Applicants.
Therefore, their evidence was not accepted without considering
these weaknesses. At the same time, the Tribunal did not find
that their entire evidence was required to be discarded.

23.   Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses has to be
considered with some caution, but it cannot be treated as useless
only because they had some differences with the Petitioners. A
witness   having    political   rivalry   may   require     careful
consideration. But that circumstance alone does not make every
statement of such witness false. The Tribunal noticed the
weaknesses in their evidence and considered the same along
with the other material. In my view, this was the proper
approach. The evidence produced by the Petitioners has some
limitations. Abhiman Sorkhade, whose statement is referred to
in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, admitted in cross-
examination that he did not know some material facts
concerning the landlord. He admitted that the Revision
Applicants had other lands as tenants of the same landlord and
that those lands were sold to them under the Tenancy Act. The
Petitioners submitted that if other lands had been sold to them,
there was no reason why the disputed land should not have
been sold. But such conclusion cannot be drawn merely because
other lands were purchased. The position of each land has to be



                                18
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


established on its own material. The panchanama dated 19
August 2000 is one of the circumstances which requires
consideration. According to the Tribunal, the panchanama
prepared by the Naib Tahsildar recorded that Respondent Nos.1
and 2 were in actual possession of Survey No.80, that paddy was
grown there and that they had been cultivating the land for
about 50 years. The panchanama was signed by Hanuman
Sorkhade, who was Revision Applicant No.3. In his cross-
examination, Hanuman stated that the contents of the
panchanama were not read over to him. He denied that the Naib
Tahsildar had visited the land. These circumstances certainly
affect the weight which can be given to the panchanama from
the Petitioner's side. Still, the document forms part of the record
and its contents have to be considered along with the other
evidence.

24.   The evidence of Sambhaji Navale, who was examined on
behalf of the Revision Applicants, does not give a complete
answer. He stated that the disputed land was in possession of
the Revision Applicants. However, in cross-examination, he
admitted that he was the brother-in-law of Revision Applicant
No.5. He admitted that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 had no land
other than the disputed land and that they were agriculturists
residing in the village. When he was asked about the ownership
of the disputed land, he stated that Ramchandra Budhaji
Sorkhade was the owner. Therefore, even this witness did not by
himself establish that the Petitioners were actually cultivating



                                19
                                                       WP-2143-15-J.doc


the disputed land as tenants. The Tribunal was therefore
justified in considering his evidence along with the whole
material instead of treating it as conclusive proof.

25.   Another circumstance needs to be noticed. Respondent
No.3, who was the landlord, did not come forward to support
either side. It was common between the parties that no rent
receipts were being issued. Therefore, the absence of a rent
receipt cannot be treated as decisive against Respondent Nos.1
and 2. In such circumstances, greater importance is required to
be given to the material regarding actual cultivation, revenue
entries and other surrounding circumstances.

26.   If the whole record is considered together, the Petitioners
cannot be said to have an unbroken documentary case. Mutation
Entry No.214 has the difficulty noticed by the Tribunal regarding
the date of death of Jaitya Dharma Patil. Mutation Entry No.501
was challenged and the supporting Hissa Forms were not
available. The Section 32G proceedings relied upon by the
Petitioners are disputed so far as Survey No.80 is concerned.
Therefore, the 32M certificate cannot be considered separately
from the proceedings on the basis of which the purchase price
was fixed. At the same time, the case of Respondent Nos.1 and 2
does not have a perfect documentary record. Their case mainly
rests upon the revenue entries, the subsequent mutation,
cultivation entries, the panchanama and oral evidence.




                                 20
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


27.     The question then is whether this material was sufficient
for the statutory authority to hold that Respondent Nos.1 and 2
were tenants. In my view, it was sufficient. There was revenue
material showing their names as tenants and cultivators in 1987-
88. Their application under Section 70(b) was filed in 1988.
There was the panchanama dated 19 August 2000 recording
possession and cultivation. There was oral evidence supporting
their actual cultivation, though such evidence was not free from
weaknesses. The absence of rent receipts was common to both
sides. On the other hand, the Petitioners did not produce
contemporaneous cultivation receipts or other convincing
documents showing that they were actually cultivating Survey
No.80.

28.      In revision the Court should not replace the factual view
of the authorities below by its own view when those authorities
have considered the evidence and arrived at a possible
conclusion. In the present case, the Tahsildar and Agricultural
Lands     Tribunal   considered    the   evidence   and   declared
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as tenants. The Sub-Divisional Officer
considered the matter and confirmed that finding. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal considered the documentary and
oral evidence and refused to interfere. In the final paragraph of
the impugned order, the Tribunal recorded that, looking at the
“overall view of documents and oral evidence”, the view taken
by the Tahsildar and Sub-Divisional Officer could not be said to
be “a perverse view or based on inadmissible evidence.”



                                  21
                                                      WP-2143-15-J.doc


29.   I have considered the material independently, but only for
the purpose of seeing whether the conclusion reached by the
authorities has relevant and admissible material in its support
and whether any important evidence has been ignored. I do not
find that the authorities below decided the matter on an
irrelevant basis or left out any vital material which could affect
the result. The findings cannot be called perverse. It may be
possible to take a different view of some individual documents,
particularly the old mutation entries or the oral evidence. But
merely because another view may be possible, that is not
enough to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution.

30.   On considering the matter as a whole, the Petitioners have
not shown that the declaration of tenancy in favour of
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 was based on no evidence, inadmissible
evidence or a conclusion which could not legally be reached.
They have not shown that the concurrent findings are perverse
or that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal acted illegally in
refusing to interfere with those findings. The fact that some
documents may be capable of another interpretation is not
sufficient to interfere under Articles 226 and 227.

31.   In these circumstances, I find that the impugned judgment
and order dated 5 February 2014 passed by the President,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in Tenancy Revision
No.297/B/2010 does not require interference. The findings
recorded by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal,


                                22
                                                         WP-2143-15-J.doc


Kalyan, by order dated 31 October 2008 and confirmed by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, by order dated 21 April 2010, are
supported by the material available on record. They do not
suffer from such perversity or jurisdictional error as would
require interference by this Court.

32.   In view of the foregoing discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, the following order is
passed:-


      i.     The Writ Petition is dismissed;

      ii.    The judgment and order dated 05.02.2014
      passed by the learned President, Maharashtra Revenue
      Tribunal,      Mumbai,        in     Tenancy      Revision
      No.297/B/2010 is upheld;

      iii.   The order dated 31.10.2008 passed by the
      Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan,
      declaring Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as tenants in
      respect of Survey No.80, situated at Village Dawadi,
      Taluka Kalyan, District Thane, and the order dated
      21.04.2010 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
      Thane, confirming the said order, are also upheld;

      iv.    It is clarified that the present order is confined to
      the issue arising under Section 70(b) of the
      Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
      1948, namely, whether Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are



                                  23
                                              WP-2143-15-J.doc


tenants in respect of Survey No.80. This Court has not
exercised appellate jurisdiction over the certificate
issued under Section 32M and has not adjudicated
any independent or larger question of title, except to
the extent necessary for deciding the pre3sent Writ
Petition;

v.    Rule is discharged;

vi.   There shall be no order as to costs.




                                     (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                            24