Bombay High Court
SHANTARAM HARIBHAU DIGHE SINCE DECD. THR HIS HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVESversusSAHEBRAO RANGU DIGHE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- SHARMILA U DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that the death of the appellant parties does not make the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order a nullity; the order must be set aside and the tenancy appeal restored for fresh hearing after the heirs are brought on record.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s (MRT) order dismissing their revision application against a Sub‑Divisional Officer’s (SDO) order in Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 2016. The original Section 32G application under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 sought fixation of a purchase price and was allowed by the Tahsildar in 2013. The respondents appealed, and the SDO held that the original applicant, an heir of Shrihari Bala Dighe, lacked any right in the suit property, but nevertheless allowed the appeal. A revision was filed before the MRT, which dismissed it on the ground that two appellant parties had died, rendering the SDO order a nullity, and also for alleged non‑prosecution. The petitioners argued that the responsibility to bring the legal heirs on record lay with the respondents and that the death of parties does not void the SDO order. The High Court quashed both the SDO order of 23 April 2018 and the MRT order of 9 November 2021, restored the tenancy appeal to be heard afresh after the heirs are brought on record, and disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- The death of appellant parties during pendency of tenancy proceedings renders the earlier order a nullity.
- Whether a revision application can be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the appellant parties are deceased.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer’s order should be set aside and the tenancy appeal restored.
- The duty of the respondents to bring legal heirs of deceased parties on record.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- tenancy law
- revision
- abatement
- death of parties
- Section 32G
- Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
- Sub‑Divisional Officer
- agricultural land
- purchase price fixation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:9955
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3499 OF 2022
1. Shantaram Haribhau Dighe, ]
(since deceased, through LRs) ]
Laxmi Shantaram Dighe
1A. ]
Aged about 62 years, ]
Occupation : Household, ]
1B. Kailas Shantaram Dighe, ]
Aged about 35 years, ]
Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
1C. Vilas Shantaram Dighe, ]
Aged about 32 years, ]
Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
]
Nos. 1A to 1C are R/o. Post Bhivadi
]
Taluka : Purandar, District : Pune. ]
1D. Vaishali Dhananjay Tupe, ]
Aged about 30 years, ]
Occupation : Household, ]
]
R/o. Uralikanchan, Tupe Vasti,
]
Tal. Haveli, District : Pune ] ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Sahebrao Rangu Dighe, ]
Age Adult, Occu : Agriculture, ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune. ]
2. Dilip Govind Dighe, ]
Age Adult, Occu : Agriculture, ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
]
District : Pune
3. Bebi Raghunath Pangare, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Velu, Tal. Bhor, ]
]
District : Pune
Sairaj 1 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
4. Lahu Maruti Dighe, ]
(since deceased, through LRs) ]
4a. Manda Lahu Dighe ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
4b. Nagesh Lahu Dighe ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
4c. Sonali Manik Lvande ]
R/at. Sighapur, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
4d. Archna Somnath Jagtap ]
R/at. Amble, Tal. Purndar, ]
District : Pune ]
4e. Jayshri Knifnath Kare ]
R/at. Sighapur, Tal. Purndar, ]
District : Pune ]
5. Shivaji Govind Dighe ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Agriculture, ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
6. Baidabai Laxman Dhadve, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Sarole, Tal. Bhor, ]
District : Pune ]
7. Shobha Mohan Raut, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Palsi, Tal. Khandala, ]
District : Satara ]
8. Chhaya Abhimanyu Borkar, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Narayanpur, Taluka : Purandar, ]
District : Pune. ]
9. Janabai Mahadev Dighe, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : housewife, ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune. ]
Sairaj 2 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
10. Vatsala Maruti Dighe, ]
(since deceased) ]
10.a Smt. Sushila Laxman Poman ]
R/at. Pimple, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune. ]
10.b Alka Dattatray Fadtare ]
R/at. Devadi, Tal. Purandar, District : Pune. ]
10.c Bebi Raghunath Pangre ]
R/at. Velu, Tal. Bhor, ]
District : Pune ]
10.d Sanjay Maruti Dighe – (Son) ]
R/at. Bhivadi, Tal. Purandar, District : Pune ]
11. Sushila Laxman Poman, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Pimple, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
12. Muktabai Govind Dighe, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Bhiwadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
13. Alka Dattatray Phadtare, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Housewife, ]
R/at. Devadi, Tal. Purandar, ]
District : Pune ]
14. Jayant Dattatraya Purandare, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Agriculturist, ]
R/at. 76, Budhwar Peth, Bhidewada, ]
Pune – 411 002. ]
15. Anil Dattatraya Purandare, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Agriculturist, ]
R/at. 76, Budhwar Peth, Bhidewada, ]
Pune – 411 002. ]
16. Sudhir Dattatraya Purandare, ]
Age. Adult, Occu : Agriculturist, ]
R/at. 76, Budhwar Peth, Bhidewada, ]
Pune – 411 002. ]
Sairaj 3 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
17. State of Maharashtra, ]
(Notice to be served on the A.G.P. High ]
Court, Mumbai) ]
——————
Mr. Sachin K. Hande for Respondent.
Mr. Ramdas Hake Patil for Petitioner.
Mr. Aditya R. Deokhar, AGP for State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 22nd June, 2026
Oral Judgment :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and taken up for final
disposal with consent.
2. By the present Petition, the challenge is at the instance of the
Revision Applicants to the order dated 9th November, 2021 passed by
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [for short, “MRT”] dismissing the
revision application.
3. The brief facts required to be noted is that the Petitioner’s
predecessor had filed an application under Section 32G of Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short, “Tenancy Act”]
seeking fixation of purchase price which came to be allowed by the
Tahsildar on 9th February, 2013. As against the order of Tahsildhar, the
Respondents filed Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 2016 before the Sub
Divisional Officer. The Appeal was filed by 13 Appellants and the Sub-
Divisional Officer came to a finding that the original Applicant in
Section 32G proceeding being the heir of Shrihari Bala Dighe, could not
Sairaj 4 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
have filed the proceedings under Section 32G of Tenancy Act, as the
previous orders held that Shrihari Bala Dighe did not have any right in
the suit property. The Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the Appeal by
order dated 23rd April, 2018. As against the order of Sub-Divisional
Officer, the Tenancy Revision Application 16 of 2018 came to be filed
and the impugned order was passed rejecting the revision application.
Hence, the Petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submits that the
revision Application was preferred against the order passed by Sub-
Divisional Officer in Appeal proceedings which Appeal was filed by the
Respondents herein. He submits that the learned Member of MRT has
dismissed the application on two grounds i.e. none were present on
behalf of the revision applicant before the MRT and secondly, during
the pendency of proceedings before the SDO, the Appellant Nos. 4 and
10 had expired and no steps were taken. He submits that as the appeal
was filed by the Respondents, the responsibility was upon the
Respondents to adopt appropriate proceedings for bringing the legal
heirs of deceased Appellant Nos. 4 and 10 on record and for the said
default, the Petitioner’s Revision Application could not have been
dismissed.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent submits
that learned Member of the MRT has dismissed the application for non-
Sairaj 5 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
prosecution and the regulation provides for filing of application for
restoration before the same Court, which opportunity could have been
availed by the Petitioner’s herein.
6. I have perused the impugned order dated 9th November, 2021.
7. The impugned order indicates that the Advocate for Revision
Applicant was not present on 9th November, 2021 i.e. on the date of the
impugned order. The learned Member of MRT noted the submissions
of Learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Respondent No 4 had
expired on 17th January, 2018 and Respondent No 10 had expired on
24th December, 2016. The Respondent No 10 had expired before the
passing of the order dated 23 rd April, 2018 by the Sub Divisional Officer
and therefore the order is nullity. It was also submitted that the
revision application cannot proceed before the MRT and be dismissed.
8. The learned Member of MRT has noted the absence of the
Advocate for the Revision Applicants to hold that the Revision
Applicants does not appear to have any interest in prosecuting the
Revision. It further held that as in the proceedings before the Sub
Divisional Officer, the Appellant no 10 had expired, the order is a
nullity and hence the revision application against such order cannot be
proceeded with. The learned Member of MRT failed to notice that the
proceedings would abate qua the deceased parties and the entire
order cannot be termed as nullity.
Sairaj 6 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
9. The impugned order indicates that the revision application is not
dismissed simplicitor for non prosecution due to absence of Advocate
for Revision Applicant, but has taken into consideration the submission
canvassed on behalf of the Advocate for the Respondents that as the
Appellant No 4 and 10 before the Sub Divisional Officer had expired,
the order was a nullity and therefore revision would not lie. The
reliance placed on Regulation 20 is misconceived as the dismissal was
not for non prosecution.
10. The Appellants before the Sub Divisional Officer were the
Respondents before the MRT, who themselves termed the order as
nullity. The responsibility was upon the Appellants to bring on the
record the legal heirs of the deceased Appellant No 4 and Appellant No
10. The appropriate course was to set aside the order of Sub Divisional
Officer dated 23rd April, 2018 and to permit the Appellants to bring the
legal heirs of the deceased on record and thereafter to decide the
Appeal. This Court is informed that that during the pendency of the
present proceedings, the Respondent No. 10(d) has expired.
11. In view of the above discussion, it would be appropriate if the
impugned order dated 9th November, 2021 passed by the MRT and the
order dated 23rd April, 2018 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is
quashed and set aside. As the death of Appellant Nos. 4 and 10 has
resulted in abatement of proceedings qua the Appellant Nos. 4 and 10,
Sairaj 7 of 8
19 WP-3499-2022 (final).doc
in my view, the Appellants are required to be given an opportunity to
bring the legal heirs of the deceased parties on record and thereafter
the Tenancy Appeal be tried afresh.
12. Resultantly, the order of 23rd April, 2018 passed by Sub Divisional
Officer in Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 2016 and the order of MRT dated
9th November, 2021 passed in Revision Application No. 16 of 2018 are
hereby quashed and set aside.
13. Tenancy Appeal No. 13 of 2016 is restored to file of Sub-
Divisional Officer be heard afresh.
14. Necessary application to be moved before the Sub-Divisional
Officer for bringing the legal heirs of deceased parties on record. Upon
the legal heirs being brought on record, the Sub-Divisional Officer to
hear the Appeal afresh.
15. All rights and contentions of all the parties on merits is kept
open.
16. Writ Petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the
above terms.
17. Nothing survives for consideration in pending Applications, if
any, and the same stand disposed of.
[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]
Sairaj 8 of 8
Checking your session…