Tenant Cultivated Agricultural Land on Tiller’s Day but Heirs Later Denied Possession; Bombay High Court Protects Deemed Purchase Rights, Quashes MRT Order
Cultivating Tenant Became Deemed Purchaser on Tiller’s Day; Bombay High Court Says Landlord’s Title Statutorily Passes Unless Purchase Becomes Ineffective Under Law
Facts
The dispute concerned Survey No. 11/3/3/6, admeasuring 89.4R, whose original holder was Maltibai Gangadhar Borgaonkar. Dunda Kolya Karbhari, grandfather of the petitioners, was recorded along with other co-tenants as a tenant cultivating the land since 1954-55, through Mutation Entry No. 80 certified on 27 September 1956. SHOBHA ALIAS
Dunda died on 7 January 1971. His widow Anandibai and children, including Lilabai, the petitioners’ mother, were thereafter entered in the revenue records. After Anandibai’s death, Lilabai continued to appear in the mutation entries concerning the land. SHOBHA ALIAS
Lilabai died on 5 October 1999. The names of her daughters—the present petitioners—and her sons were entered in respect of other inherited lands, but the subject land was omitted from Mutation Entry No. 966. SHOBHA ALIAS
In 2011, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 purportedly executed a registered sale deed in favour of Mukund and Mukul Patel. Proceedings were thereafter initiated before the ALT under Section 70(b) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, seeking a declaration that certain descendants of Dunda Karbhari were not tenants and that their names should be deleted. SHOBHA ALIAS
Significantly, the present petitioners—the daughters of Lilabai—were not joined as parties. A power-of-attorney holder representing their brothers gave no objection to deletion of the tenancy entries. Acting solely upon that affidavit and without conducting an independent inquiry, the ALT allowed the application on 18 April 2012. SHOBHA ALIAS
The SDO eventually allowed the petitioners’ appeal, holding that they were necessary parties and that there was no material showing termination or surrender of the tenancy in accordance with law. The MRT reversed the SDO, principally reasoning that other heirs had admitted they were not cultivating the land and that it was improbable that the petitioners, being granddaughters of the original tenant, continued cultivation. SHOBHA ALIAS SHOBHA ALIAS
The petitioners therefore approached the Bombay High Court under Article 227.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, exercising limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 76, could reassess factual matters and overturn the SDO’s appellate decision.
- Whether tenancy rights could be deleted without impleading and hearing all legal heirs of the deceased tenant.
- What was the legal consequence of Dunda Karbhari admittedly being in possession and cultivation of the land on the Tiller’s Day under Section 32.
- Whether statements by some legal heirs that they were no longer cultivating or possessing the land could extinguish statutory tenancy/deemed purchase rights.
- Whether an alleged surrender or release of tenancy rights for consideration could be recognised without compliance with Sections 15 and 29 of the Tenancy Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the MRT exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by re-entering questions of fact and disturbing a reasoned appellate order of the SDO. SHOBHA ALIAS
They emphasized that they were Lilabai’s daughters and legal heirs, yet the landlords deliberately proceeded under Section 70(b) without impleading them. The ALT therefore could not determine their tenancy rights behind their backs. SHOBHA ALIAS
More fundamentally, Dunda Karbhari was admittedly cultivating the land on the Tiller’s Day. Consequently, the statutory rights that vested under the Tenancy Act could not subsequently be defeated merely by obtaining deletion of tenancy names from the revenue record. SHOBHA ALIAS
The petitioners also questioned the bona fides of the original proceedings, pointing to the sale of the property, the power-of-attorney arrangements and the affidavit filed on behalf of certain heirs consenting to deletion. SHOBHA ALIAS
Respondent’s Arguments
The landlords argued that the petitioners could not rely upon their non-impleadment because their names were never entered as Lilabai’s legal heirs in respect of the subject land itself. Mutation Entry No. 966 related to other lands and omitted the disputed property. SHOBHA ALIAS
They further relied upon Section 40, arguing that after the 1956 amendment, tenancy continues only in favour of those heirs who are willing to continue it.
According to the respondents, there was no evidence that either Lilabai or the petitioners had demonstrated willingness to continue the tenancy. Mere status as legal heirs, therefore, did not automatically establish their status as tenants. SHOBHA ALIAS
They relied upon Vithal Dattatraya Kulkarni v. Shamrao Tukaram Power and Vasant Hariba Londhe v. Jagannath Ramchandra Kulkarni. SHOBHA ALIAS
It was further argued that the other heirs had admitted that they and their families had not cultivated the property for decades; hence, interference under Article 227 was unwarranted. SHOBHA ALIAS
Analysis of the Law
1. MRT’s Revisional Jurisdiction Is Narrow
Section 76 permits interference only where:
- the Collector’s order is contrary to law;
- a material issue of law has not been determined; or
- a substantial procedural defect has resulted in miscarriage of justice. SHOBHA ALIAS
The High Court held that the MRT is therefore a tribunal of limited jurisdiction. Revision cannot be converted into a full factual rehearing equivalent to an appeal. SHOBHA ALIAS
2. Tiller’s Day Fundamentally Changed the Parties’ Rights
This became the decisive aspect of the judgment.
Dunda Karbhari was recorded as a tenant cultivating the property since 1954-55 and was admittedly in possession on the Tiller’s Day. The landlords themselves had not disputed his tenancy on that date. SHOBHA ALIAS
Under Section 32, every qualifying tenant is deemed to purchase the land from the landlord on the Tiller’s Day.
The High Court explained that the landlord’s title passes immediately to the tenant. The statutory purchase remains operative unless it becomes ineffective in one of the situations contemplated by the Act. SHOBHA ALIAS
Therefore, the authorities could not treat the controversy as an ordinary question of whether Dunda’s descendants were physically cultivating the property decades later.
3. Informal Surrender Cannot Destroy Tenancy Rights
The High Court also stressed the protection contained in Sections 15 and 29.
Section 15 requires voluntary surrender to be:
in writing + verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner.
Section 29 prevents a landlord from recovering possession from a tenant except pursuant to an order of the competent authority. SHOBHA ALIAS
Thus, statements or affidavits suggesting that tenancy rights had been “released” for consideration could not substitute the mandatory statutory procedure.
Precedent Analysis
State of Kerala v. K.M. Charia Abdulla & Co.
The Supreme Court distinguished an appeal from a revision. An appeal ordinarily brings the entire proceeding before the appellate authority, whereas a revisional authority cannot reassess evidence unless the governing statute expressly confers such power. SHOBHA ALIAS
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh
The Constitution Bench reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be equated with a full-fledged appeal. The revisional authority must operate strictly within the parameters prescribed by the statute. SHOBHA ALIAS SHOBHA ALIAS
Rahimatulla Rahiman Sarguru v. Bapu Hari Mane
The Supreme Court specifically considered Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act and held that the MRT’s powers are narrowly confined. The High Court relied upon this authority in assessing whether the MRT had improperly reassessed facts. SHOBHA ALIAS
Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay
This Constitution Bench decision was central to the Tiller’s Day issue.
The Supreme Court explained that the landlord’s title passes immediately to the tenant on the Tiller’s Day and the statutory purchase remains effective unless declared ineffective in accordance with the Act. SHOBHA ALIAS
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade
The Supreme Court held that on Tiller’s Day the landlord’s interest is extinguished and, through statutory sale, title is simultaneously created in the cultivating tenant. The conventional landlord-tenant relationship consequently comes to an end and the tenant becomes the deemed purchaser. SHOBHA ALIAS SHOBHA ALIAS
Babu Parasu Kaikadi v. Babu
This precedent was important on surrender.
The Supreme Court held that even a voluntary surrender is legally ineffective unless it complies with Sections 15 and 29. If the surrender is invalid, possession obtained by the landlord pursuant to it is also invalid; physical possession with the landlord does not necessarily extinguish the tenant’s legal right to possession. SHOBHA ALIAS SHOBHA ALIAS
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court identified multiple errors in the MRT’s approach.
First, the petitioners were legal heirs of Lilabai. The SDO’s finding that they ought to have been joined in proceedings affecting inherited tenancy rights was described by the High Court as “rather impeccable.” SHOBHA ALIAS
Second, the ALT had granted the negative declaration solely on the basis of an affidavit filed by a power-of-attorney holder, without undertaking an independent inquiry into whether the tenancy had lawfully terminated. SHOBHA ALIAS
Third, and most importantly, both the ALT and MRT failed to appreciate the legal consequence of Dunda Karbhari being the cultivating tenant on Tiller’s Day.
Once that fact was established, the case could not be decided merely by asking whether his descendants continued physically cultivating the property decades later. The statutory deemed purchase under Section 32 had to be addressed first. SHOBHA ALIAS
Fourth, the MRT improperly relied upon statements by other heirs that they were not in possession. In doing so, it effectively undertook factual reassessment beyond its limited revisional jurisdiction. SHOBHA ALIAS
Fifth, even assuming the case were approached as one of continuing tenancy, Mutation Entry No. 161 recorded Lilabai’s name after Dunda’s death. The High Court considered this indicative of the intention of Anandibai and her children to continue the tenancy. SHOBHA ALIAS
Finally, the alleged release of tenancy rights for consideration could not amount to lawful surrender. Sections 15 and 29 prescribe mandatory safeguards against informal dispossession of agricultural tenants. SHOBHA ALIAS
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the MRT committed a grave error in relying upon statements of some successors that they were not cultivating the land while ignoring the statutory rights flowing from the original tenant’s possession on Tiller’s Day and the mandatory procedure governing surrender and recovery of possession.
The Court accordingly allowed the writ petition, quashed the MRT’s order dated 12 February 2025, restored the SDO’s order dated 8 June 2020 in Tenancy Appeal No. 38/2019, and consequently dismissed Tenancy Case No. 08/2012. No costs were imposed. SHOBHA ALIAS
Case Details
Case: Shobha @ Surekha Suresh Patil & Anr. v. Radhika Prakash Borgaonkar & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 6061 of 2025 SHOBHA ALIAS
Judge: Justice N. J. Jamadar
Date: 28 September 2026 SHOBHA ALIAS
Result: Writ Petition allowed; MRT order quashed; SDO order restored; Tenancy Case No. 08/2012 dismissed; no costs.
