Bombay High Court
RAMABAI RAMAJI MALI (DEC) BY LRS.versusSANTOSH KASHINATH PILENA AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Tribunal’s order setting aside the earlier tenancy deletion orders is quashed and set aside, thereby restoring the earlier orders.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the order of the President of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 20‑08‑2013 in Tenancy Revision No. 5/B/2010, which had set aside earlier orders deleting the names of certain persons as agricultural tenants. The earlier orders, based on a tenancy case filed under Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, had directed that the respondents' names be removed from the land record. Respondent Nos. 1‑4, who had appealed the deletion, later filed the revision and obtained the Tribunal’s order. They subsequently filed an affidavit‑in‑reply stating they were never tenants, had no objection to the deletion, and consented to the quashing of the Tribunal order. The court, relying on the affidavit and the respondents’ statements, set aside the Tribunal order and restored the earlier orders of 05‑12‑2008 and 31‑05‑2006. The interim stay granted earlier was vacated and the writ petition was disposed without costs.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of an affidavit‑in‑reply by the respondents, admitting they were never tenants and consenting to the deletion of their names, on the Tribunal’s order setting aside earlier tenancy deletion orders?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- tenancy revision
- agricultural land
- Section 15
- Bombay Tenancy Act
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- affidavit
- quash order
- civil writ petition
- property record
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
VINA 901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc
VINA ARVIND
ARVIND KHADPE
KHADPE Date:
2026.09.10
17:48:10
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3302 OF 2014
Ramabai Ramaji Mali (decd)
thr. Lrs. Gajanan Ramji Mali
since deceased thr. Lrs.
Nandkumar Gajajan Mali and ors. … Petitioners
Versus
Santosh Kashinath Pilena and ors. … Respondents
***
Mr. Satyajeet Joshi a/w Mr. Chinmay Joshi for the Petitioners.
Ms. Swati Sagvekar a/w Mr. Shiv Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 to 12.
Mr. Nachiket H. Tarade for Respondent Nos.13 &18 to 24.
Mr. Santosh Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.1 present.
Mr. Sanjay Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.2 present.
Mr. Subhadra Kashinath Pilena - Respondent No.3 present.
Ms. Aruna Suresh Hadal - Respondent No.4 present.
Mr. Vishal Jaywant Pilena - Respondent No.5(ii) present.
Mr. Gopal Madhar Pilena - Respondent No.9(b) present.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 10 SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present Petition is
filed challenging the order of the President, Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Mumbai dated 20.08.2013 in Tenancy Revision No.
5/B/2010 by which the order passed by the Tahsildar & ALT Palghar
and subsequent order of Sub Divisional Officer, Dahanu were set
aside.
2. Respondent Nos. 5 to 12 filed Tenancy Case No.15/SR/1/2006
Vina Khadpe 1
901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc
under Section 15 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (for short, ‘the said Act’) which was allowed on 31.05.2006,
thereby directing that their names recorded as agricultural tenants be
deleted from the record of the subject matter property. The said order
was challenged by the present Respondent Nos.1 to 4 before the
concerned SDO in Tenancy Appeal No.1 of 2007 which was dismissed
under Order dated 05.12.2008.
3. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 then filed Tenancy Revision No.
5/B/2010 in the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, in which
the impugned order is passed setting aside the earlier orders.
4. Learned Counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 12 tendered an
Affidavit-in-Reply filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 12 accepting that they
were never tenants of the land in question and have no objection if
their names are deleted from the concerned record and they are
consenting for quashing and setting aside the impugned order
thereby giving up their claim of alleged tenancy. They have
undertaken that they would not challenge or question any transaction
in respect of the land in question. It is jointly submitted that the
transaction referred in paragraph 27 of the Affidavit-in-Reply refers
to the transaction with Respondent Nos.18 to 24.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner therefore requested that the
impugned order be set aside in view of the Affidavit-in-Reply.
6. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 (at whose instance, the Tribunal has
passed the impugned order setting aside earlier orders) are present in
Court who are duly identified by their Advocate. On a query by the
Vina Khadpe 2
901.as.wp.3302.2014 @.doc
Court, Respondent Nos.1 to 4 stated that they have no objection if the
order of the Tribunal is set aside as they were not concerned with the
subject matter property.
7. A copy of Affidavit-in-Reply affirmed on 07.09.2026 and a copy
of the Power of Attorney executed by the Petitioners are taken on
record and marked as “X” collectively for identification.
8. In view of the Affidavit-in-Reply and the statements made by
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the Court, the impugned order dated
20.08.2013 in Tenancy Revision No.5/B/2010 is quashed and set
aside thereby restoring the earlier orders dated 05.12.2008 and
31.05.2006.
9. This Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. Interim
relief/stay granted on 13.02.2018 is vacated. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Vina Khadpe 3
Checking your session…