SHOBHA ALIAS SUREKHA SURESH PATIL AND ANRversusRADHIKA PRAKASH BORGAONKAR AND ORS

                                                                    WP-6061-25.DOC

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6061 OF 2025


                      1. Shobha @ Surekha Suresh Patil
                         Age : 48 years, Occ.: Household
                         Residing at Post Vashere, Amane
                         Taluka Bhivandi, District Thane

                      2. Ranjana Vijay Bhoir,
                         Age: 49 years, Occ.: Household
                         Residing at post Itade, Tal: Bhivandi,
                         District Thane.                                ...Petitioners
SAINATH
SANJAY                        Versus
BODKHE
Digitally signed by
SAINATH SANJAY
BODKHE                1. Radhika Prakash Borgaonkar
Date: 2026.09.28
21:59:32 +0530           Age: Adult, Occ.: Agriculturist

                      2. Amrut Prakash Borgaonkar
                         Age: Adult, Occ.: Agriculture

                      3. Sudhir Gangadhar Borgaonkar
                         Age: Adult, Occ: Agricultural
                         (through their Constituted attorney)
                         Mukund P. Patel
                         Mukul P. Patel
                         R/at- 501, Rutu Business Park,
                         Off. L.B.S. Road, Majiwada,
                         Thane (W) 400601.

                      4. Amit Prakash Borgaonkar
                         Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
                         R/o Borgaonkar Bungalow, Par Naka,
                         Siddheshwar Lane, Kalyan (W),
                         Thane 421301.

                      5. Tukaram Ragho Patil
                         Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture

                      6. Suresh Ragho Patil
                         Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

                      SAINATH, PA                        1/34
                                           WP-6061-25.DOC

     Res no.3 and 4 R/o- Near Datta
     Mandir, Village Savad, P. O.
     Amane, Tal. Bhivandi, Dist. Thane.

7. Dinkar Dunda Karbhari
   (Since deceased represented by L.R.)

7.1 Bebibai Dinkar Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

7.2 Santosh Dinkar Karbhari
   Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

7.3 Shivaji Dinkar Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

7.4 Avita P Kene
    Age: Adult; Occ:

7.5 Sayali Sunil Patil
    Age: Adult; Occ:

7.6 Bharat Dinkar Karbhari
    Since deceased represented by LR

7.6.1 Anjali Bharat Karbhari
      Age: Adult; Occ: Household

7.6.2 Kunal Bharat Karbhari
      Age: Adult; Occ:

7.6.3 Jenika Bharat Karbhari
      Age: Adult; Occ:

      All respondents R/o Gandhari gaon,
      Tal. Kalyan (W), Thane 421301

8. Banubai Janardhan Mhatre
   Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
   R/o Chinchanpada, Kolsewadi
   Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane

9. Baban Dunda Karbhari

SAINATH, PA                        2/34
                                         WP-6061-25.DOC

     (since deceased through his LRs)

9A. Yashwant Baban Karbhari
    Age 39

9B. Nitin Baban Karbhari
    Age 37

9C. Krishna Baban Karbhari
    Age 35 R/o. Gandhari Gaon,
    Karbhari House, Kalyan (W).

9D. Bharti Baban Karbhari
    Age 45, R/o. Bharat Shreedhar
    Bedekar, Bedekar Bagla,
    Agasan gaon, Thane (E).

9E. Yogita Baban Karbhari
    @ Yogita Vinayak Gaikwad,
    Age 43, R/o. Tisgaon, Parwati
    Building, Kalyan (W).

9F. Lata Baban Karbhari
    @ Lata Laxman Patil
    R/o. Savad gaon, Bhiwadi
    Patil Chal.

10. Mainabai Padu Karbhari
    (Since deceased through L.R.)
    Respondent no.9, 11, 13 to 16)

11. Mahadev Padu Karbhari
    Age: Adult, Occ: Agriculture
    Res. No.8 to 10 R/o Village
    Gandhare, Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane

12. Rakhmabai Savlaram Tare
    (Since deceased through L.R.)

12.1 Gunibai Sudam Kene
     Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

12.2 Nandabai Ramesh Randhavi

SAINATH, PA                      3/34
                                           WP-6061-25.DOC

         Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

12.3 Yashwant Savlaram Tare
      Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

      All R/o Shivnagar (Chaudhari Pada)
      Post Lonad, Shivajinagar, Lonad
      Thane 421302

13. Gajanan Padu Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

14. Vimal Krushna Mehre
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

15. Kisan Padu Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

16. Gulab Shantaram Bhane
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

17. Sitabai Harishchandra Navale
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

18. Balaram Padu Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture
    Res. No 12 to 17 R/o Village
    Gandhare, Tal. Kalyan,
    Dist. Thane

19. Tarabai Madhukar Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

20. Mahesh Madhukar Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

21. Kundan Madhukar Karbhari
    Res. No. 18 to 20 R/o. Anandibai
    Nivas, New Nashik Highway,
    Near Hanuman Mandir,
    Gandharigaon, Kalyan (W)

22. Vandana Kailas Gawade
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture
SAINATH, PA                        4/34
                                               WP-6061-25.DOC



23. Sangeeta Madhukar Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

24. Eknath Savlya Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

25. Ashok Savlya Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

26. Arun Savlya Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

27. Vhandrabai Savlya Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

28. Savitribai Savlya Karbhari
    Age: Adult; Occ: Agriculture

      Res. No. 21 to 27 R/o Village
      Gandhare, Tal. Kalyan, Dist. Thane.

29. Tahsildar & ALT, Kalyan,
    Dist. Thane.

30. Sub-Divisional Officer,
    Kalyan, Dist. Thane.

31. State of Maharashtra
_____________ _______ ___                      …Respondents
                                               _________

Mr. Shriram S Kulkarni, i/b Mr. Sujay Palshikar, for the
Petitioners.

Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate, Mr. Amrut Joshi,
     Mr. Rakesh Misar, Mr. Vivek Rajpurohit, i/b RVM Legal,
     for Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

Ms. Shivani Kondekar, a/w Ms. Vidya Doke, for Respondent
     Nos.5 & 6.

Mr. Ajit Savagave, for Respondent No.9A-F & 19 - 23.


SAINATH, PA                        5/34
                                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

Smt. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent Nos.29-31 – State.
_____________________________________

                    CORAM                    :     N. J. JAMADAR, J.
                    RESERVED ON             :      08th SEPTEMBER 2026
                    PRONOUNCED ON :                28th SEPTEMBER 2026


JUDGMENT:


1.      Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, and with the

consent of learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.


2.      By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India,        the   petitioners    assail    the      legality,   propriety   and

correctness of a judgment and order dated 12th February, 2025,

passed         by   the   learned    President,        Maharashtra      Revenue

Tribunal,           Mumbai        (“MRT”)        in    Revision      Application

No.TNC/REV/THN/63/2021 whereby the revision application

preferred by the Respondent Nos.1 to 3/landlords against an

order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyan in Tenancy

Appeal No.38/2019, thereby setting aside the order dated 18 th

April, 2012 passed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Land

Tribunal (“ALT”) in Tenancy Case No.08/2012 directing the

deletion of the names of the predecessor-in-title of the

petitioners as the tenants in respect of the land bearing Survey

No.11/3/3/6 admeasuring 89.4R (“subject land”) purportedly

SAINATH, PA                                 6/34
                                                WP-6061-25.DOC

in the exercise of the power under Section 70(b) of the

Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“MT

and AL Act, 1948”), came to be allowed by setting aside the

order passed by the SDO.


3.      Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to

this petition, can be stated as under :-


3.1     Maltibai Gangadhar Borgaonkar, the predecessor-in-title

of the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, was the original holder of the

subject land.


3.2     Dunda Kolya Karbhari was the grandfather of the

petitioners. Dunda Karbhari was the tenant alongwith the

other co-tenants in respect of the subject land. Vide Mutation

Entry No. 80, certified on 27 th September, 1956, the names of

Dunda Karbhari and others were recorded in the record of

rights of the subject land as tenants since 1954-1955.


3.3     The petitioners claimed, Dunda Kolya Karbhari passed

away on 07th January, 1971. He left behind his widow

Anandibai Dunda Karbhari and five children including Lilabai

Ragho Patil/Mhatre. The names of the children of Dunda

Karbhari and Anandibai including Lilabai were mutated to the


SAINATH, PA                      7/34
                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

record of rights of the subject land, vide Mutation Entry No.

161, certified on 29th March, 1971. Lilabai Ragho Patil/Mhatre

was the mother of the petitioners and their brothers, namely,

Tukaram Ragho Patil (R-5) and Suresh Ragho Patil (R-6).


3.4     After the demise of Anandibai on 12 th April, 1985, the

names of her children including Lilabai were mutated to the

record of rights of the land bearing Survey No.11/3/3/6 (part)

vide Mutation Entry No.928.


3.5     The petitioners further claimed, after Lilabai passed away

on 05th October, 1999, vide Mutation Entry No.966, the names

of the petitioners and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated to

the record of rights of other lands. However, the subject land

was not included therein.


3.6     On 20th May, 2011, the petitioners assert, the Respondent

Nos.1 to 4 executed a registered sale deed purporting to sell the

subject land in favour of Mukund Pratap Patel and Mukul

Pratap Patel. On the strength of the said instrument and the

purported power of attorney, the said Mukund P. Patel and

Mukul P. Patel filed a number of applications, including

Tenancy Case No.08/2012, before the ALT seeking a negative

declaration that, deceased Dinkar Dunda Karbhari, the
SAINATH, PA                       8/34
                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

predecessor-in-title of the Respondent Nos. 7.1 to 7.6.3,

Banubai Janardhan Mhatre (R-8) and deceased Lilabai, who

was impleaded through Takaram Patil (R-5) and Suresh Patil

(R-6) as her only legal representatives, were not the tenants in

respect of the subject land and thus their names be deleted

from the record of rights of the subject land.


3.7     In the said proceedings, one Sanjay Shantaram Kankose

filed an affidavit-in-reply in the capacity of the power of

attorney of Tukaram Patil (R-5) and Suresh Patil (R-6) and

conceded the claim of the purported landlords and gave no

objection to the deletion of the names of the respondents

therein from the record of rights of the subject land.


3.8     On the basis of the said affidavit-in-reply, the ALT was

persuaded to allow the said application and direct the deletion

of the names of the respondents therein from the record of

rights of the subject land.


3.9     Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal

before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalyan. After one round of

remand, in Tenancy Appeal No.38/2019, the Sub-Divisional

Officer, Kalyan was persuaded to allow the appeal holding,

inter alia, that the petitioners who are the daughters of the
SAINATH, PA                      9/34
                                                WP-6061-25.DOC

deceased Lilabai were not impleaded in the said application

under Section 70(b) of the MT and AL Act, 1948, though the

names of the petitioners appeared in the record of rights of the

agricultural lands held by Lilabai. Thus, the ALT ought to have

dismissed the application on the ground of non-joinder of

necessary parties. Moreover, the ALT had not examined the

issue as to whether the petitioners and other co-tenants were

the tenants in respect of the subject land in accordance with

the provisions of the MT and AL Act, 1948. There was nothing

to indicate that, the tenancy was either terminated by

surrender in accordance with the provisions of Section 15 of

the MT and AL Act, 1948, and the landlord had obtained the

possession of the subject land after termination of the tenancy

in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 31 of

the MT and AL Act, 1948. Thus, the declaration made by the

ALT was completely illegal.



3.10 Being aggrieved, the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 preferred the

revision before the MRT under Section 76 of the MT and AL

Act, 1948.




SAINATH, PA                    10/34
                                                WP-6061-25.DOC

3.11 By the impugned judgment and order, the learned

President, MRT was persuaded to allow the revision. The

learned President, MRT was of the view that, all legal heirs of

the deceased Dunda Karbhari except the petitioners had stated

in writing before the ALT that they were not in possession and

cultivation of the subject land. Since the petitioners were the

granddaughters of late Dunda Karbhari, it was very unlikely

and impossible that, the petitioners were in cultivation of the

subject land. As the Sub-Divisional Officer did not properly

appreciate this fact, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional

Officer suffered from an error of law warranting interference in

the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, ratiocinated the

learned President, MRT.


3.12 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioners have

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.



3.13 An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in support of the impugned judgment

and order.


4.      I have heard Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, the learned Counsel

for the petitioners, Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, the learned


SAINATH, PA                      11/34
                                                     WP-6061-25.DOC

Senior Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4, Ms. Shivani

Kondekar, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6,

Mr. Ajit Savagave, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 9

and 19 to 23 and Smt. Savita Prabhune, the learned Counsel

for Respondent Nos. 29 to 31 – State. The learned Counsel for

the parties took the Court through the order passed by the

Authorities below and the material on record.


5.      Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the

petitioners, took a slew of exceptions to the impugned

judgment and order. Firstly, the MRT in exercise of its limited

jurisdiction, could not have interfered with the well reasoned

order passed by the Appellate Authority. Secondly, Mr. Kulkarni

would urge, the MRT committed a grave error in law in delving

into the factual aspects and setting aside the order passed by

the Sub-Divisional Officer on that score. Thirdly, the fact that

the petitioners are the daughters of late Lilabai and the names

of the petitioners were mutated to the record of rights of other

lands left behind by late Lilabai alongwith the Respondent

Nos.5 and 6, was not in dispute. Yet the Respondent Nos.1 to 4

the     purported   landlords   filed   an   application   seeking   a

declaration under Section 70(b) of the MT and AL Act, 1948

without impleading the petitioners as party respondents to the
SAINATH, PA                        12/34
                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

said application. On that count alone, the order passed by the

ALT was required to be interfered with and, thus, the Sub-

Divisional Officer was fully justified in holding that, the

application before the ALT was bad for non-joinder of necessary

parties. Fourthly, Mr. Kulkarni submitted with a degree of

vehemence that as late Dunda Karbhari was in cultivation of

the subject land on the tiller’s day, the vested statutory rights

could not have been defeated by resorting to the subterfuge of

seeking a direction for the deletion of the names of tenants

from the record of rights of the subject land. Lastly, taking the

Court through the record of proceedings before the ALT,

especially the institution of the application by the purported

power of attorney holders in whose favour the subject land was

already unlawfully sold, and the filing of the affidavit on behalf

of the tenants by the purported power of attorney, Mr. Kulkarni

would urge that, the proceedings before the ALT were not

bona fide.


6.      Per contra, Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, the learned

Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 4, laid emphasis on

the fact that, the petitioners cannot be permitted to draw

mileage from their non-impleadment in the application before

the ALT as the names of the petitioners were not entered in the
SAINATH, PA                     13/34
                                                   WP-6061-25.DOC

record of rights as the legal heirs of the late Lilabai qua the

subject land. Attention of the Court was invited to the Mutation

Entry No. 966, which does not include the subject land. Mr.

Kumbhakoni would thus urge that, the contention that the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 had not designedly impleaded the

petitioners as the party respondents to the Tenancy Application

No. 08/2012 in their capacity of the legal representatives of late

Lilabai, cannot be coutenanced.


7.      Even otherwise, Mr. Kumbhakoni would urge, the mere

fact that the petitioners are the daughters of late Lilabai, one of

the daughters of deceased Dunda Karbhari, by itself, does not

establish the juridical status of the petitioners as the tenants

qua the subject land. Taking the Court through the provisions

contained in Section 40 of the MT and AL Act, 1948 which

provides for the continuance of tenancy upon the death of

tenant, especially the legislative change brought about by Act

No.13 of 1956, in the matter of heritability of the tenancy, Mr.

Kumbhakoni,      assiduously    urged    that,   post   the   1956

Amendment, the landlord shall be deemed to have continued

the tenancy in favour of such heir or heirs of the deceased

tenant as may be willing to continue the tenancy.



SAINATH, PA                      14/34
                                                               WP-6061-25.DOC

8.      In the case at hand, according to Mr. Kumbhakoni, there

is not an iota of material to show that, late Lilabai the

predecessor-in-title of the petitioners or after the demise of late

Lilabai the petitioners had conveyed their willingness to

continue the tenancy. Mr. Kumbhakoni would urge, willingness

to continue the tenancy is an essential statutory qualification

and      in     the   absence    of   material    to    demonstrate      such

willingness, the mere fact that the petitioners are the heirs of

late Lilabai is of no significance. To this end, Mr. Kumbhakoni

placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the

case of Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni & ors. Vs. Smt. Shamrao

Tukaram Power & ors.1, and a full Bench judgment of this

Court in the case of Vasant Hariba Londhe Vs. Jagannath

Eamghandra Kulkarni2.


9.      Mr. Kumbhakoni further submitted that, this Court in

the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction need not interfere

with      the    impugned       judgment    and        order    as   there   is

overwhelming material to show that, all the other heirs have

unequivocally admitted the fact that, they were not in

cultivation of the subject land. Laying emphasis on the affidavit


1       (1979) 3 SCC 212
2       1969 Mh.L.J. 249
SAINATH, PA                             15/34
                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 that since

decades they and their family members were not in cultivation

of the subject land, Mr. Kumbhakoni submitted that, there is

no substantial failure of justice. Nor can it be said that, the

petitioners have been deprived of their rights.


10.     I have given careful consideration to the submissions

canvassed across the Bar.


11.     To begin with, by and large, the following facts appear to

be rather incontrovertible. First, the predecessor-in-tile of the

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 was the original holder of the complete

and undivided land bearing Survey No.11/3. Secondly, the fact

that the name of Dunda Kolya Karbhari came to be mutated to

the record of rights of the subject land vide Mutation Entry

No.80 as a tenant who had been in the occupation of the

subject land alongwith the co-tenants since the year 1954-

1955. Thirdly, it is not much in dispute that, late Dunda

Karbhari passed away on 07 th January, 1971 and the names of

his widow Anandibai and children including Lilabai, the

mother of the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, came

to be mutated to the record of rights of the subject land on 29 th

March, 1971. Fourthly, upon the demise of Anandibai, the


SAINATH, PA                       16/34
                                                 WP-6061-25.DOC

names of her children including Lilabai came to be mutated to

the land bearing Survey No.11/3/3/6 (part). Fifthly, though

after the demise of Lilabai on 05th October, 1999, the names of

the petitioners and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were mutated to

the other lands left behind by late Lilabai, vide Mutation Entry

No.966, yet the subject land was not included therein. Lastly, it

is indisputable that in the Application No.08/2012 purportedly

seeking a negative declaration, the petitioners were not

impleaded as the legal heirs of late Lilabai.



12.     Evidently, the ALT had passed the order on 18 th April,

2012 in the said Application No.08/2012 solely on the basis of

the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the purported power of

attorney of Respondent Nos.5 and 6. The ALT had not

embarked upon any inquiry and proceeded to record the

findings solely on the strength of the contentions in the said

affidavit.


13.     The Sub-Divisional Officer was of the view that, the ALT

could not have decided the application under Section 70(b) of

the MT and AL Act, 1948, when a negative declaration was

sought without providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal

heirs of late Lilabai and conducting an inquiry to decide the
SAINATH, PA                      17/34
                                                      WP-6061-25.DOC

question of tenancy in the light of the governing provisions of

the MT and AL Act, 1948.


14.     The learned President, MRT found the aforesaid approach

of the Sub-Divisional Officer unsustainable. The fact that all

the other heirs of the original tenants had conceded that, they

were not in the cultivation and possession of the parcels of the

land bearing Survey No.11/3, seems to have predominantly

weighed with the learned President, MRT. It was also observed

that, it appeared to be improbable that, the petitioners, who

were the granddaughters of late Dunda Karbhari, would

continue to cultivate the subject land.


15.     Whether   the   aforesaid    approach    of   the   MRT    is

justifiable ?


16.     The first issue that wrenches to the fore is, whether the

MRT could have intervened with the order passed by the Sub-

Divisional Officer in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It

would thus be necessary to appreciate the nature of the

revisional jurisdiction exercised by the MRT under Section 76

of the MT and AL Act, 1948.


17.     Section 76 of the MT and AL Act, 1948, reads as under :-


SAINATH, PA                         18/34
                                                                 WP-6061-25.DOC

              “S. 76. Revision :

              (1)    Notwithstanding anything contained in the
              Bombay Revenue Tribunal Act, 1939, an application
              for revision may be made to the [Maharashtra
              Revenue Tribunal] constituted under the said Act
              against any order of the Collector on the following
              grounds only;
              (a)     that the order of the Collector was contrary to
              law;
              (b)     that the Collector failed to determine some
              material issue of law; or
              (c)     that    there   was     a    substantial    defect    in
              following the procedure provided by this Act, which
              has resulted in the miscarriage of justice.
              (2)     In deciding applications under this section
              the [Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal] shall follow the
              procedure which may be prescribed by rules made
              under    this    Act    after       consultation    with     the
              [Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal].”


18.     The text of Section 76(1) makes it explicitly clear that, the

MRT is conceived as a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction. The

grounds on which MRT may entertain a challenge to, and, if

found necessary, interfere with, an order passed by the

Collector have been spelled out in clear and unambiguous

terms by clauses (a) to (c). It needs no emphasis that, the

jurisdiction of MRT is circumscribed by the grounds specified

in clauses (a) to (c) of the MT and AL Act, 1948.


SAINATH, PA                             19/34
                                                             WP-6061-25.DOC

19.     At this juncture, it is necessary to keep in view the

distinction between revisional and appellate jurisdiction. In the

case of The State of Kerala Vs. K. M. Charia Abdulla & Co. 3, the

Supreme Court has exposited the distinction between the

appellate and revisional jurisdiction in the following words :-

              “There is an essential distinction between an appeal
              and   a   revision.   The   distinction   is   based   on
              differences implicit in the said two expressions. An
              appeal is a continuation of the proceedings; in effect
              the entire proceedings are before the appellate
              authority and it has power to review the evidence
              subject to the statutory limitations prescribed. But
              in the case of a revision, whatever powers the
              revisional authority may or may not have, it has not
              the power to review the evidence unless the statute
              expressly confers on it that power. That limitation is
              implicit in the concept of revision.”
                                               (emphasis supplied)


20.     A profitable reference can also be made to a Constitution

Bench judgment in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs.

Dilbahar Singh4, wherein while construing the revisional power

of the High Court, under the State Rent Control legislations,

the Supreme Court adverted to, and explained, the distinction




3       AIR 1965 SC 1585
4       (2014) 9 SCC 78
SAINATH, PA                            20/34
                                                                    WP-6061-25.DOC

between appellate and revisional jurisdiction. The relevant part

of paragraph 28 reads as under :-

              “28. ......Conceptually, revisional jurisdiction is a part
              of appellate jurisdiction but it is not vice versa. Both,
              appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction are
              creatures of statutes. No party to the proceeding has
              an inherent right of appeal or revision. An appeal is
              continuation of suit or original proceedings, as the
              case may be. The power of the appellate court is
              coextensive with that of the trial court. Ordinarily,
              appellate jurisdiction involves rehearing on facts and
              law but such jurisdiction may be limited by the
              statute   itself    that     provides     for   the    appellate
              jurisdiction.      On      the    other    hand,      revisional
              jurisdiction, though, is a part of appellate jurisdiction
              but ordinarily it cannot be equated with that of a full-
              fledged appeal. In other words, revision is not
              continuation of suit or of original proceeding. When
              the aid of Revisional Court is invoked on the
              revisional side, it can interfere within the permissible
              parameters provided in the statute. It goes without
              saying that if a revision is provided against an order
              passed by        the Tribunal/appellate authority,          the
              decision of the Revisional Court is the operative
              decision in law. In our view, as regards the extent of
              appellate or revisional jurisdiction, much would,
              however, depend on the language employed by the
              statute conferring appellate jurisdiction and revisional
              jurisdiction."
                                                        (emphasis supplied)



SAINATH, PA                                    21/34
                                                       WP-6061-25.DOC

21.     In the light of the aforesaid enunciation of law on the

aspect of fundamental distinction between the appellate and

revisional jurisdiction, if the nature of the revisional power

conferred on the MRT under Section 76 of the MT and AL Act,

1948 is considered, it becomes evidently clear that, the

legislature has not vested in the MRT, a general power of

revision.     Instead,   the   revisional   jurisdiction   is   explicitly

confined to what can properly be termed as errors of law or

substantial defect in procedure resulting in miscarriage of

justice.


22.     In the case of Rahimatulla Rahiman Sarguru Vs. Bapu

Hari Mane & anr.5, a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme court

after adverting to the grounds as enumerated in Section 76(1)

of the MT and AL Act, 1948, on which the revisional power can

be exercised by the MRT postulated that the power of revision

entrusted to the MRT under Section 76 of the MT and AL Act,

1948, are practically identical with the second appellate powers

of the High Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 before it was amended by Act 104 of 1976. The

aforesaid position was also highlighted by a three-Judge Bench

of the Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Bala Raut Vs.

5       AIR 1979 SC 1326
SAINATH, PA                          22/34
                                                  WP-6061-25.DOC

Dashrath Babu Wathare & ors.6


23.     Keeping in view the aforesaid rigor of Section 76 of the

MT and AL Act, 1948, the justifiability of interference by the

MRT is required to be appreciated. The first ground which

weighed with the Sub-Divisional Officer to interfere with the

order passed by the ALT was that, the petitioners were not

impleaded as the party respondents to the application, though

the record of rights indicated that the petitioners alongwith the

Respondent Nos.5 and 6 had succeeded to the estate of late

Lilabai. These findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer appeared

to be rather impeccable. The landlord could not have taken

refuge under Mutation Entry No.966, whereby the names of the

petitioners and Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were mutated to the

lands left behind by late Lilabai except the subject land.


24.     The learned President, MRT, has not found any fault with

the aforesaid findings of the Sub-Divisional Officer. On the

contrary, the learned President, MRT, proceeded to overturn

the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, on the ground

that, all other legal heirs of the original tenant except the

petitioners had stated in writing before the ALT that they were


6       AIR 1974 SC 2051
SAINATH, PA                      23/34
                                                 WP-6061-25.DOC

not in possession and cultivation of the subject land. In the

process, however, the learned President, MRT lost sight of the

very pertinent observations made by the Sub-Divisional Officer

that the ALT has not examined whether the tenancy came to be

terminated in consonance with the provisions MT and AL Act,

1948.


25.     Both the ALT as well as the MRT appeared to have

committed a manifest error in law in not appreciating the

consequences     that   emanated   from   the   possession   and

cultivation of the land bearing Survey No.11/3/3/6 by late

Dunda Karbhari on the tiller’s day. As noted above, the name of

late Dunda Karbhari came to be mutated to the record of rights

of the land bearing Survey No.11/3/3/6 on 27th September,

1956 as a tenant thereof for being in cultivation of the subject

land since 1954-1955. Dunda Karbhari passed away on 07 th

January, 1971.

26.     At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that in the

Tenancy Case No.08/2012, it was nowhere the case of

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 that late Dunda Karbhari was not a

tenant in respect of the subject land on the tiller’s day. On the

contrary, it was asserted that, the name of Anandibai, the

widow of late Dunda Karbhari was mutated to the record of
SAINATH, PA                     24/34
                                                             WP-6061-25.DOC

rights of the subject land as a tenant thereof and after her

demise the names of the respondents therein namely Dinkar

Karbhari, Banubai Mhatre and late Lilabai were mutated as

the legal heirs of Anandibai and those entries be deleted. It

thus becomes absolutely clear that, as of the tiller’s day Dunda

Karbhari was in possession and cultivation of the subject land

and continued to possess the subject land till his demise in

1971. The aforesaid facts completely alter the nature of the

jural relationship between the tenants and the erstwhile

landlord.


27.     In view of the provisions contained in Section 32 of the

MT and AL Act, 1948, on the tiller’s day, every tenant shall

subject to other provisions of that section and the succeeding

sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free

of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the

land held by him as a tenant, provided certain conditions are

fulfilled.    The   title   of   the   landlord   to   the    land   passes

immediately to the tenant on the tiller’s day. The title of the

land which was vested originally in the landlord passes to the

tenant on the tiller’s day or the alternative period prescribed in

that regard. The title so transferred is defeasible only in the

event of the tenant failing to appear or making a statement that
SAINATH, PA                            25/34
                                                        WP-6061-25.DOC

he is not willing to purchase the land or committing default in

payment of price thereof as determined by the Tribunal.


28.     The   aforesaid     position    was     expounded       by      the

Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri

Ram Ram Narain Medhi Vs. State of Bombay 7 which reads as

under :-

              “41. …. The title of the landlord to the land passes
              immediately to the tenant on the tiller's day and
              there is a completed purchase or sale thereof as
              between the landlord and the tenant. The tenant is
              no doubt given a locus penitentiae and an option
              of declaring whether he is or is not willing to
              purchase the land held by him as a tenant. If he
              fails to appear or makes a statement that he is not
              willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by
              an order in writing declare that such tenant is not
              willing to purchase the land and that the purchase
              is ineffective. It is only by such a declaration by the
              Tribunal that the purchase becomes ineffective. If
              no such declaration is made by the Tribunal the
              purchase would stand as statutorily effected on
              the tiller's day and will continue to be operative,
              the only obligation on the tenant then being the
              payment of price in the mode determined by the
              Tribunal. If the tenant commits default in the
              payment of such price either in lump or by
              installments as determined by the Tribunal, S.


7       AIR 1959 SC 459
SAINATH, PA                          26/34
                                                         WP-6061-25.DOC

              32M declares the purchase to be ineffective but in
              that event the land shall then be at the disposal of
              the Collector to be disposed of by him in the
              manner provided therein. Here also the purchase
              continues to be effective as from the tiller's day
              until such default is committed and there is no
              question of a conditional purchase or sale taking
              place between the landlord and tenant. The title to
              the land which was vested originally in the
              landlord passes to the tenant on the tiller's day or
              the alternative period prescribed in that behalf.
              This title is defeasible only in the event of the
              tenant failing to appear or making a statement
              that he is not willing to purchase the land or
              committing default in payment of the price thereof
              as determined by the Tribunal. The tenant gets a
              vested interest in the land defeasible only in either
              of those cases and it cannot therefore be said that
              the title of landlord to the land is suspended for
              any period definite or indefinite. If that is so, there
              is   an   extinguishment     or     in   any   event    a
              modification of the landlord's right in the estate
              well within the meaning of those words as used in
              Art.31A (1)(a).”
                                                (emphasis supplied)


29.     In the case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale & ors. Vs. Kashinath

Janardhan Trade & anr.8, after following the aforesaid

pronouncement, the Supreme Court enunciated that, it is


8       (1983) 3 SCC 437
SAINATH, PA                          27/34
                                                      WP-6061-25.DOC

unquestionably established that on the tiller’s day, the

landlord’s    interest   in   the   land    gets   extinguished   and

simultaneously by a statutory sale without anything more by

the parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or

created in the tenant. That very moment the landlord-tenant

relationship as understood in common law or Transfer of

Property Act comes to an end. The link and chain is broken.

The absent non-cultivating landlord ceases to have that

ownership element of the land and the cultivating tenant, the

tiller of the soil, becomes the owner thereof. Without any act of

transfer inter vivos the title of the landlord is extinguished and

is created simultaneously in the tenant making the tenant the

deemed purchaser.


30.     The ALT as well as the learned President, MRT completely

ignored the salient statutory change brought about by the

Amending Act, 15 of 1957. Those authorities proceeded on the

premise, as if there was no legislative intervention and deemed

transfer of ownership. Instead of examining the issue from the

perspective of the lawful termination of the tenancy, given the

admitted position that Dunda Karbhari was in possession and

cultivation of the subject land as of the tiller’s day, the learned

President, MRT misdirected himself in delving into the question
SAINATH, PA                         28/34
                                                   WP-6061-25.DOC

of facts as regards the import of the statements by the other

legal heirs of the original tenant that they were not in

possession and cultivation of the subject land. The learned

President, MRT clearly exceeded the limits of revisional

jurisdiction in venturing into the thicket of facts.


31.     The submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni premised on Section

40 of the MT and AL Act, 1948, is not required to be delved

into elaborately. Once it is established that, late Dunda

Karbhari was in cultivation and possession of the subject land

on the tiller’s day and he passed away in the year 1971, the

entire complexion of the controversy changes. Even otherwise,

the Mutation Entry No. 161 clearly records that, the name of

late Lilabai, the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, came to

be mutated to the subject land upon the demise of Dunda

Karbhari in the year 1971. The said Mutation Entry manifests

the intention of Anandibai and all her children to continue the

tenancy, even if one were to proceed on the premise that, late

Dunda Karbhari did not become the deemed purchaser of the

subject land on the tiller’s day. In any event, none of the

authorities below have examined and discarded the claim of

the petitioners on the ground that, there was no material to

show that, the petitioners had not shown willingness to
SAINATH, PA                      29/34
                                                          WP-6061-25.DOC

continue as the tenants.


32.     The learned President, MRT, seems to have committed a

grave error in recording the finding on the basis of the

statements made by the other successors in interest of late

Dunda Karbhari that they were not in possession and

cultivation of the subject land. In the process, the learned

President, MRT, completely lost sight of the fact that the MT

and AL Act, 1948 frowns upon divesting the tenant of the

possession       of   the   agricultural   land     otherwise   than   in

accordance with the provisions contained in the MT and AL

Act, 1948. It is pertinent to note in the affidavit filed on behalf

of    the     respondent    Nos.5   and    6   in   the   Tenancy   Case

No.08/2012, it was affirmed by the Power of Attorney that, the

purported tenancy rights in the subject land were released in

favour of the ladlord after obtaining consideration from them.



33.     Suffice to note that, section 15 of the MT and AL Act,

1948 specifically addresses the anxiety of the legislature in

ensuring that the tenant is not dispossessed of the land on the

spacious plea that the tenant voluntarily surrendered the land.

The proviso to section 15(1), ordains in emphatic terms that the

voluntary surrender by the tenant shall be in writing, and

SAINATH, PA                          30/34
                                                      WP-6061-25.DOC

verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner.

Conversely, section 29(2) injuncts the landlord from obtaining

possession of the land held by the tenants except under an

order of the Mamlatdar. Evidently, it is not the claim of the

landlord that, in the case at hand, the tenant had surrendered

the possession of the suit lands in conformity with, and

observance of, the provisions contained in sections 15 and 29

MT and AL Act, 1948.



34.     A useful reference, in this context, can be made to a

judgment of a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the

case of Babu Parasu Kaikadi (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Babu (Dead)

through LRs9. In the said case, the jural relationship between

the parties thereto as the landlord and tenants was not

disputed. It was also not disputed that the tenants therein had

voluntarily surrendered the land to the landlord; however, the

said surrender was not in terms of sections 15 and 29 of the

MT and AL Act, 1948. The Supreme Court, in the light of the

aforesaid     facts,   considered   the   question:   “Whether   the

voluntary surrender which is not in terms of sections 15 and

29 is a valid one?" After adverting to the provisions contained

in sections 15 and 29 of the Act, 1948, the Supreme Court
9       (2004) 1 SCC 681
SAINATH, PA                         31/34
                                                          WP-6061-25.DOC

expounded the legal position as under :-

              “5.    The   said     Act,    therefore,   contemplates
              termination of tenancy by surrender thereof; and
              consequent taking over possession by the landlord.
              How such termination of tenancy could take place
              is provided for in Section 15 of the Act in terms
              whereof inter alia a surrender of the tenancy
              becomes a legal one only when such surrender is in
              writing and verified before the Mamlatdar in the
              prescribed manner. For the said purpose the
              Mamlatdar is also required to hold an enquiry. It is
              not in dispute that purported surrender made by
              the    predecessor-in-interest     in   favour   of   the
              respondents herein was although considered to be
              voluntary but the same did not satisfy the very
              legal requirement, contained in Section 15 of the
              Act.

              6. Section 29 of the Act, as noticed hereinbefore,
              postulates   taking    over   of   possession    by   the
              landlord from the tenant only in accordance with
              procedure prescribed therefor. In the event, the
              surrender made by the predecessor-in-interest of
              the appellant in favour of the respondent is found
              to be invalid; the possession thereof obtained by
              the later pursuant to or in furtherance thereof
              shall also be invalid. In such an event, although
              the landlord takes a physical possession of the
              land, the right to possess the same remains with
              the tenant. He could recover possession of the said
              land in accordance with law. The said Act is a
              beneficent statute. It should be construed in

SAINATH, PA                           32/34
                                                                WP-6061-25.DOC

              favour of the tenant and against the landlord. The
              protection given to the tenant in terms of the said
              Act must be given full effect. So construed, the
              expression possession' would also include right of
              possession. The view which we have taken is
              fortified   by    the   decisions   of     this   Court   in
              Ramchandra Keshav Adke (dead) by Lrs and Ors.
              V. Govind Joti Chavare and Ors., [1975] 1 SCC
              559; Bhagwant Pundalik and Anr. v. Kishan
              Ganpat Bharaskal and Ors., [1971] 1 SCC 15 and
              in Abdul Ajij Shaikh Jumma and Anr. v. Dashrath
              Indas Nhavi and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 1626 and
              thus the consistent view had been that the
              surrender by the tenant for being legal must be in
              conformity       with   the   provisions     contained    in
              Sections 15 and 29 of the Act."

                                                  (emphasis supplied)



35.     In the backdrop of the aforesaid clear and explicit

enunciation of the legal position, and the express mandate of

the provisions contained in sections 15 and 29 of the MT and

AL Act, 1948, the learned President, MRT was not at all

justified in recording the finding on the basis of the statements

of the other legal heirs of Dunda Karbhari that they were not in

possession of the subject land.



36.     For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment and


SAINATH, PA                             33/34
                                                    WP-6061-25.DOC

order passed by the learned President, MRT deserves to be

quashed and set aside.


37.     Hence, the following order :-

                              ::ORDER::


       (i)     The Writ Petition stands allowed.

       (ii)    The impugned order dated 12th February, 2025,

       stands quashed and set aside.

       (iii)   The order dated 08th June, 2020 passed by the

       Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.38/2019

       stands restored and the Tenancy Case No.08/2012

       stands dismissed.

       (iv)    Rule made absolute in the aforesaid terms.

       No costs.

                                           [N. J. JAMADAR, J.]




SAINATH, PA                        34/34