Twenty four years after the death of the original tenant and landlord, the Bombay High Court recently granted relief to the legal heir of the tenant by quashing an order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) that had refused possession of agricultural land to the tenant.
The case pertains to one Tatya Ahirekar, landlord of agricultural lands (suit lands), in Vikhale village, Koregaon taluka, Satara, and Jaisingh Ahirekar his tenant. Mr. Tatya obtained a certificate under Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act on July 10, 1962, on the grounds that the eight plots of lands did not exceed the economic holding and that the total annual income of the landlord did not exceed ₹1500.
Jaisingh died on September 23, 1980. Mr. Tatya thereafter made an application seeking a negative declaration that Jaisingh was not the tenant. However, the Agricultural Land Tribunal (ALT) dismissed the landlord’s application holding that Jaisingh had cultivation rights of the said land.
Jaisingh’s heirs filed an application before the sub-divisional officer, Koregaon for restoration of possession of suit lands. After holding an enquiry, the sub-divisional officer, allowed the application and said, “though the landlord was a certificated landlord, the possession of the suit lands was not obtained in accordance to the Act.” The ALT found that Jaisingh was in cultivation of the suit lands and the said finding has attained finality.
The officer held, “the claim of the landlords that they have obtained possession of the suit lands from the tenants was held to be unsustainable as the landlords were not entitled to take possession of the tenanted lands.”
The officer allowed the application and directed the landlords to evict themselves from the suit lands and restore possession to the tenants.
Tatya’s legal heirs challenged the order before MRT and it passed an order on October 20, 1994, that Jaisingh was not in possession of the suit lands and relied upon a statement made by Tatya that “he was personally cultivating the suit lands since many years”.
After Tatya’s death, legal heirs of Jaisingh moved the high court on November 6, 1995. A single bench of N.J. Jamadar recently held that “MRT was not at all justified in recording the finding on the basis of a lame claim of voluntary surrender of the suit lands by the original tenant, without anything more. It is more so for the reason that the tenant has been claiming that the landlord unlawfully dispossessed him of the suit lands.”
The Bench quashed the order passed by the MRT and said, “I am conscious of the time-lag. However, in view of the perfunctory manner in which MRT has rendered the order, there is no other go but to remit the matter back to MRT for fresh consideration.”
