Bombay High Court: Lawful Cultivation on Tillers’ Day Sufficient for Deemed Tenancy—Mutation Entries Cannot Be Disregarded Without Challenge, and Absence of Rent Receipts Does Not Defeat Tenancy Claims

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court quashed the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s (MRT) order dated April 19, 1997, which had denied the petitioners’ tenancy status. The High Court reinstated the Sub-Divisional Officer’s (SDO) decision, affirming that the petitioners were lawful tenants under Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

The Court held:

• “Lawful cultivation on the Tillers’ Day (April 1, 1957) is sufficient to confer deemed tenancy status under the Act, even in the absence of a written rent agreement or rent receipts.”
• The Tribunal erred in reversing the SDO’s findings, as it lacked jurisdiction to re-evaluate the evidence.
• Mutation entries showing the petitioners as tenants since 1955 were unchallenged and valid, establishing their tenancy rights.

Facts

1. The case pertains to agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 705/1, 702/5, and 705/13, located in Village Limb, District Satara.
2. The original owner of the land, Krishna Mahadu Mali, had two sons, Krishna and Hari. Hari had no legal heirs, while Krishna had a daughter, Thakubai.
3. On March 27, 1940, Krishna gifted the suit lands to his daughter, Thakubai. This transaction was recorded through Mutation Entry No. 3812, recognizing her as the legal owner.
4. In 1977, Thakubai filed a suit seeking an injunction against the petitioners, claiming they were illegally occupying her land.
5. The petitioners (defendants in the civil suit) argued that they were tenants of the land since 1935 under a crop-sharing arrangement.
6. The Civil Court referred the case under Section 85A of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act to determine whether the petitioners were lawful tenants.
7. The Tenancy Awal Karkoon (lower tenancy authority) ruled against the petitioners, holding they were not tenants.
8. The SDO reversed this finding in 1992, recognizing the petitioners as legal tenants.
9. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) again reversed the SDO’s decision in 1997, denying tenancy rights to the petitioners.
10. The petitioners approached the High Court, challenging the Tribunal’s order.

Issues

1. Did the petitioners acquire tenancy rights under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948?
2. Is lawful cultivation on the Tillers’ Day (April 1, 1957) sufficient to establish tenancy rights?
3. Did the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) exceed its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence instead of reviewing legal errors?
4. Were the 1955 mutation entries legally valid and sufficient to confer tenancy rights?
5. Should the Tribunal have relied on oral testimony over documentary evidence from government revenue records?

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Tenancy Rights Recognized in 1955:
   • The mutation entries from August 11, 1955, recognized the petitioners’ ancestors as “ordinary tenants”.
   • These entries were never challenged by the original owner (Thakubai) or her legal heirs.
2. Revenue Records Confirm Lawful Cultivation:
   • The petitioners’ names appeared in Form 7/12 land records from 1950 onward.
   • Entries for 1957 showed “रीत-3” and “रीत-4”, indicating they were cultivating the land as tenants.
3. Legal Protection Under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act:
   • According to Section 4, anyone lawfully cultivating another’s land is a deemed tenant, unless they fall under specific exceptions (e.g., being a family member, servant, or mortgagee).
   • The Tribunal incorrectly demanded rent receipts, whereas case law confirms that rent receipts are not necessary.
4. MRT’s Decision Was Beyond Its Jurisdiction:
   • The Tribunal acted as an appellate body instead of limiting itself to jurisdictional errors.
   • It had no power to re-evaluate evidence or overturn factual findings made by the SDO.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. No Tenancy Created Before 1940:
   • The petitioners claimed tenancy from 1935, but the owner (Thakubai) only acquired the land in 1940.
   • She could not have created tenancy before becoming the legal owner.
2. Mutation Entries Were Allegedly Fraudulent:
   • The mutation entries of 1955 were allegedly recorded without notice to the owner (Thakubai).
   • Since no formal tenancy agreement existed, the petitioners were trespassers, not lawful tenants.
3. Lack of Rent Receipts or Lease Agreements:
   • The petitioners failed to produce any rent receipts, which the respondents argued was proof that no tenancy existed.
4. Reliance on Oral Testimony:
   • Two witnesses stated that Thakubai personally cultivated the land, contradicting the petitioners’ claims.

Analysis of the Law

1. Definition of “Tenant” Under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act (Section 2(18)):
   • Includes contractual tenants, deemed tenants, and protected tenants.
   • Deemed tenancy (under Section 4) applies to those lawfully cultivating land on the Tillers’ Day (April 1, 1957).
2. Supreme Court and High Court Rulings:
   • Babu Hari Patil v. Rama Ananda Jadhav (2005): No rent receipts are needed to establish deemed tenancy.
   • Dhondu Bapu Survey v. Aniruddha Yashwant Vaidya (1997): Lawful cultivation is sufficient to claim tenancy.
   • Dahya Lala v. Rasul Mohamed Abdul Rahim (1963): Consent of the landowner is not necessary for lawful cultivation to grant tenancy rights.
3. Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Under Article 227 of the Constitution:
   • The Tribunal had limited revisional jurisdiction and could not re-assess evidence.
   • Its order was unlawful as it acted beyond its authority.

Court’s Reasoning

1. Mutation Entries of 1955 Were Valid:
   • The land records officially recorded the petitioners as tenants.
   • These entries were never legally challenged by the landowner.
2. Tillers’ Day (April 1, 1957) Is the Relevant Date:
   • The Tribunal wrongly focused on 1935, while the law only requires proof of tenancy on April 1, 1957.
   • Since the petitioners were lawfully cultivating the land on this date, they acquired statutory tenancy rights.
3. Oral Evidence Cannot Override Official Government Records:
   • The Tribunal relied on oral testimony recorded in 1984-85, nearly 30 years after the events in question.
   • Such evidence could not outweigh land revenue records.
4. Tribunal’s Order Was Without Jurisdiction:
   • The Tribunal exceeded its authority by reassessing evidence instead of reviewing legal errors.
   • The SDO’s decision was legally sound and should not have been reversed.

Conclusion

1. The Tribunal’s order of April 19, 1997, was quashed.
2. The SDO’s decision of February 28, 1992, confirming the petitioners’ tenancy rights, was restored.
3. Lawful cultivation on Tillers’ Day (April 1, 1957) was sufficient for tenancy rights, even in the absence of rent receipts.
4. The petitioners were recognized as tenants under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act, 1948.

Implications

• Strengthens tenancy rights by affirming that lawful cultivation, not rent receipts, is key to tenancy claims.
• Limits Tribunal’s powers to jurisdictional review, preventing it from re-evaluating evidence.
• Clarifies legal principles on deemed tenancy, ensuring landowners cannot dispossess lawful cultivators.

Also Read – Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Imprisonment for Husband: “Burden of Explaining Wife’s Homicidal Death in Locked Room Lies on the Accused, Strengthening Conviction Under Section 302 IPC”