VISHWANATH DHONDIBA DAVNEversusSHEWANTABAI TULSHIRAM CHAMBARGE THROUGH LRS HIRKANBAI SHESHRAO FULSAMDAR AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:20117
                                                                         WP-338-2021.odt

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                             WRIT PETITION NO.338 OF 2021

           Vishwanath Dhondiba Davne
           Age: 67 years, Occu: Agriculture
           R/o. Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga,
           Dist. Latur
           Since deceased, per L.Rs.

           1-A. Vatsalabai vishwanath davne
           Age:67 years, Occu. Household,
           R/o. Savtamali Chowk, Mali Galli,
           Nilanga, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur

           1-B. Balaji Vishwanath Davne
           Age. 45 years, Occu.
           Agriculture, R/o. As above

           1-C. Madhav vishwanath davne
           Age: 43 years, Occu: Agriculture,
           R/o. As above

           1-D. Dattatray Vishwanath Davne
           Age: 41 years, Occu: Agriculture,
           R/o. As above                                         … Petitioners
                       VERSUS
           1) Shewantabai W/o. Tulshiram Chambarge
           (Died through her legal heirs)

           1-A) Hirkanbai W/o. Sheshrao Fulsamdar
           Age: 71 Years, Occu. Household,
           R/o. Hasangaon, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.

           1-B) Tirwanbai W/o. Dhondiram Jagtap
           Age: 61 Years, Occu. Household,
           R/o. Gangapur, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur

           2) Wrandabai W/o. Anilkumar Wadwale
           Age: Major, Occu. Household,
           R/o. Mali Galli, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.
           3) Anilkumar S/o. Shantaram Wadwale
                                               1
                                                               WP-338-2021.odt

Age: 50 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Mali Galli, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.

4) Santosh S/o. Shivajirao Rashme
Age: 46 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Shivaji Nagar, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur.   … Respondents

                                  …..
Mr. S. S. Bora, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. C. D. Biradar, Advocate for Respondents
                                  …..

                     CORAM              : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                     Reserved On        : 04.03.2026
                     Pronounced On      : 30.04.2026

JUDGMENT :

1.    RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition
finally with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.


2.    The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 18.10.2019
passed by the learned Member Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in Revision Application No.
17/B/2018/Latur; the order dated 14.11.2017 passed by the learned
Deputy Collector (General Administration), Latur in Appeal No.
2014/General/Cr-18; and the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the
Tahsildar, Nilanga, in File No. 2002/Land Development/Kavi/82.


3.    The petitioners have further prayed that the issue regarding
tenancy over the suit land bearing Survey No. 235/B, admeasuring 2H
17R, under the Bataipatra dated 01.06.2001 executed by deceased
Respondent No. 1, be answered in the affirmative, in view of the
reference made under Section 99-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and
                                    2
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of
1950”).

3.     The facts of the present case are as follows :-

[I]    As per the case of the petitioner, it is contended that the
petitioner   had    transferred   land   bearing   Survey   No.   235/B,
admeasuring 2 Hectares 17 R, in the name of Shevantabai by a
registered sale deed dated 10.01.1975, and accordingly, her name was
entered in the revenue record as owner vide Mutation Entry No. 1138.
Thereafter, Shevantabai executed a Bataipatra dated 01.06.2001 in
favour of the petitioner in the presence of witnesses, pursuant to
which the petitioner came into possession of the said land. By virtue
of the said Bataipatra, a contractual tenancy was created, which is
recognized under Section 4-A of the Act of 1950. It is further
contended that Respondent No. 1, at the instigation of certain ill-
wishers, attempted to alienate the suit land to third parties though the
Petitioner was entitled to purchase the same as per Section 48 of the
Act, 1950 and also obstructed the petitioner’s possession. Hence, the
petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 288 of 2001 seeking perpetual
injunction. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nilanga by
order dated 11.10.2002, granted temporary injunction in favour of
the petitioner, thereby restraining Respondent No. 1 from interfering
with the petitioner’s peaceful possession. The said order was
challenged by Respondent No. 1 by filing MCA No. 30 of 2002 before
the District Court, which came to be dismissed.


[II]   During the pendency of the suit, Respondent No. 1 sold the suit
land to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and attempted to disturb the

                                     3
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

petitioner’s possession. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application
below   Exhibit-116    seeking   temporary    injunction   against      the
purchasers, which was allowed by the trial court on 13.12.2010. On
08.08.2012, the petitioner was forcibly dispossessed by Respondent
No. 4. Consequently, the petitioner filed an application below Exhibits
– 179 and 216 for mandatory injunction and restoration of possession.
The Petitioner could not find favor before Hon'ble Trial Court or the
Appellate Court. Finally, the said proceeding was concluded vide
remand order in Writ Petition No. 1369/2013 and direction was
issued to the Trial Court to record specific finding as regards to the
dispossession of the Petitioner. After remand of the matter, the finding
was recorded that, Petitioner was in lawful possession and he was
illegally dispossessed at the hands of defendant Nos.4 in violation of
the order of temporary injunction operating in his favor. The said
order was made subject matter of Writ Petition No. 10816/2014
before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court confirmed the aforesaid
order granting restoration of possession of the Petitioner. Even, the
SLP filed by defendant No.4 against the order of this Hon'ble Court
came to be dismissed. As such, Petitioner came to be restored in his
possession and enjoying the possession till this date as a tenant.


[III] Pursuant to the said orders, the petitioner was restored to
possession on 01.02.2018. In view of the pleadings and as per Section
99-A of the Act of 1950, the issue of tenancy was referred by the civil
court to the tenancy authorities. The Tahsildar, Nilanga, without
granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, held that the
petitioner is not a tenant. The said order was upheld by the Deputy
Collector, Latur. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a revision
before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the
                                    4
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

Tahsildar for fresh adjudication after giving an opportunity to adduce
evidence. However, upon remand, the Tahsildar again rejected the
petitioner’s claim on the ground that there were no old revenue
entries reflecting the petitioner’s tenancy. The said order was
confirmed by the Additional Collector, observing that there was no
finding by the civil court regarding the genuineness of the Bataipatra
dated 01.06.2001 and that no revenue entries existed pursuant
thereto. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision
before the Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by order dated
18.10.2019 against which present Petition is filed.


4.    The learned counsel, Mr. Bora, appearing for the petitioner,
submits that the Tahsildar, after remand, rejected the petitioner’s
claim on the ground that there were no entries reflecting the
petitioner’s tenancy in the revenue record for the period from 1954 to
2001. He submits that the petitioner’s case is primarily based on the
Bataipatra dated 01.06.2001, and therefore, the Tahsildar ought to
have considered the record subsequent to 01.06.2001. It is contended
that the findings recorded by the Tahsildar are perverse. He further
submits that, unfortunately, the Tribunal failed to consider this crucial
aspect.


4.1         In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following
Judgments :

      [a]   Gnyandeo Vs. Pandurang Jyoti Pirange ; AIR 1994
            BOM 265;

      [b]   Kishan S/o Dashrath Naikwade Vs. Asrabai W/o Babu
            Naikwade and Ors.; 1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 68 ;


                                    5
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

5.      Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. Biradar, appearing for the
respondents, invited my attention to the provisions of the Act of 1950,
and contended that there is no concept of contractual tenancy under
the said Act, and that only protected tenancy and ordinary tenancy, as
contemplated under Sections 38-E and 38-G, are recognized. He
further submits that the petitioner and Respondent No. 1 are brother
and sister. According to the petitioner’s own case, he executed a sale
deed in favour of Respondent No. 1 in the year 1975, pursuant to
which Respondent No. 1 became the absolute owner of the suit
property. Therefore, Respondent No. 1 was fully entitled to transfer
the property, and accordingly executed a sale deed in favour of
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and thereafter Respondent No. 3 further
transferred the property to Respondent No. 4. He further points out
that Respondent No. 1 – Shevantabai has specifically denied the
execution of the alleged Bataipatra. It is submitted that the said
document does not bear the signature of Respondent No. 1, and the
petitioner has merely examined a witness to support the alleged
contractual tenancy. In these circumstances, it is submitted that, after
remand, the Tahsildar, the Deputy Collector, and the Tribunal have
rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly decided the matter.


5.1          In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following
Judgments :

      [a] Radhakishan Soni Vs. Gangaram; 1978 (1) LJSOFT 90 ;

      [b] Sampat s/o Zingu Vs. Farooq Ali s/o Chunnilal & Others;
          1997 (2) Bom. C.R. 699 ;

      [c] Gangubai w/o Bhagwanrao Pawatekar Deceased through
          LRs. Vs. Kishanrao s/o Limbajirao Kadam Deceased
          through LRs and Ors.
                                    6
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

     [d] Nilawabaj Sida Khajure Vs. Chanmalappa Basappa and
        Ors.; 1977 Mh.L.J. 443 ;

     [e] Sunderbai Sahebrao Shinde Vs. Balbai Bansi Chalak and
         Ors. 1992 MCR 312 ;

     [f] Sheshrao Bolegave Vs. Shivram s/o Amrutrao Patil; 2005
         (2) Mh.L.J 1102 ;


6.     Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Deputy
Collector, and the Tribunal, it appears that the issue of contractual
tenancy has arisen from the pleadings before the civil court.
Accordingly, the civil court framed an issue of tenancy and referred
the same to the tenancy authorities for adjudication. In the earlier
round of litigation, the Tribunal remanded the matter with a specific
direction to the Tahsildar to decide the issue of contractual tenancy. It
appears that the Tahsildar after complying with the directions issued
by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, has came a
conclusion that, the Petitioner is not tenant of the said property as no
revenue record from the year 1954 to 2001 was produced showing
tenancy in favour of Petitioner. The Bataipatra relied upon by the
Petitioner does not confer tenancy rights upon the Petitioner. Even if
the said Bataipatra is considered to be genuine, it is merely a
contractual agreement for sharing the crops between land owner and
the person sowing the field. Bataipatra is a mutually agreed
contractual engagement by the land owner with another person to
plough his field for the consideration of sharing of crops between
them. Therefore, the meaning of Bataipatra itself does not confer any
tenancy rights upon the person in whose favour the Bataipatra is
executed. In Bataipatra possession is handed over only for the purpose

                                    7
                                                              WP-338-2021.odt

of growing crops and not for the purpose of tenancy as required under
the Act of 1950.


7.      The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that
Section 4-A of the Act of 1950 confers contractual tenancy in favour
of Petitioner is liable to be rejected for the reason that no such
concept exists in the Act of 1950. I have gone through the said
provision and it speaks about applicability of Transfer of Property Act,
1882 with the Act of 1950. So far as the Judgmetns cited by the
learned Advocate for the Petitioners are concerned, the same are not
applicable to the present facts as the case of the Petitioner is solely
based on Bataipatra, which does not confer any tenancy rights upon
him. As the case of the petitioner is based on the Bataipatra dated
01.06.2001, I am of the opinion that the findings recorded by the
Tahsildar in remand, which are also confirmed by the Revenue
Authorities, are proper. Therefore, the present Petition deserves to be
dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :

                                  ORDER

[I]     The writ petition is dismissed.

[II]    No order as to costs.

[III] Rule is discharged.

[IV] Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                     [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]


Sameer/March-2026




                                      8