MUSA MAINUDDIN VAREKAR Vs. SELUDHAN MISTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, Petitioners challenge Judgement and Order dtd. 3/7/2010 passed by the President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai (MRT) in TNC Revision No.127/B/2003. By that order, the MRT has confirmed the Order dtd. 9/9/2002 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Thane (SDO) in Tenancy Appeal No. 31 of 2000 preferred by the Respondent landlord. The SDO had in turn, set aside Order dtd. 18/9/2000 passed by Agricultural Land Tribunal and Tehsildar, Kalyan in Application No.3 of 1997 declaring Petitioners to be the tenants.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that village Borivade was a Salsette Estate village, where neither survey of lands was conducted nor the land was subject to levy of land revenue. Predecessor of Respondent had purchased the land of entire village by Deed of Conveyance dtd. 21/4/1925, which included land which was subsequently numbered as Survey No. 47, Hissa No.2 and which is the subject matter of the petition. Respondent's predecessor-in-title was thus the Estate Holder in respect of the land in village Borivade. After enactment of the Salsette Estate (Land Revenue Record Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951, the exemption from payment of land revenue was withdrawn and it became necessary for the revenue authorities to carry out survey settlement of lands in village Borivade. Accordingly, the survey was conducted and Survey numbers were designated to various lands ,including the land bearing Survey No.47, Hissa No.2. On 8/4/1960, Mutation Entry No. 4 was effected by which name of predecessor of Petitioners-Mainuddin Abbas Shaikh was recorded to the revenue records in respect of the land in question. That Mutation Entry was challenged by Manijeh Doctor, predecessor of the Respondent. Another Mutation Entry No.131 not recognizing the rights of estate holders was also challenged. On 5/12/1968, an order was passed by the Commissioner, Bombay Division holding the mutation of name of Mainuddin Abbas Shaikh as illegal. Accordingly, name of Manijeh Doctor was inserted as holder of the land in the revenue records. It was directed that the name of Mainuddin Abbas Shaikh be inserted in other rights column of 7/12 extract. On 4/4/1977, Manijeh Doctor (Hakim) transferred the land in question in favour of Sohrab Ardeshir Hakim and Sillo Dhan Mistri (Respondent). Respondent's name was accordingly inserted in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Survey No.47, Hissa No.2. By agreement, Power of Attorney and Deed of Conveyance dtd. 17/6/1982 Respondent conveyed and transferred the land bearing Survey No.47, Hissa No.2 to Samartha Borivade Village Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. By Mutation Entry No.332, the name of the society was inserted by deleting respondent's name from revenue records.

(3.) On 15/7/1985 Application No.39 of 1985 was filed by the Petitioners' predecessor under Sec. 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) for purchase of the land bearing Survey No.47, Hissa No.2. For Application was rejected by the Tehsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) on 17/3/1987. Ten years later, Petitioners filed Tenancy Case No.3 of 1997 under Sec. 70(b) of the Tenancy Act for a declaration he was tenant of the land bearing Survey No.47, Hissa No.2. The Application was allowed by the Tehsildar by Order dtd. 18/9/2000. Respondent filed Tenancy Appeal No.31 of 2001 before the SDO, which came to be allowed by Order dtd. 9/9/2002 setting aside the order passed by the Tehsildar. Review Application filed by the Petitioners before SDO was dismissed on 20/12/2002. In the meantime, Petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.376 of 2003 before Civil Judge, Senior Division at Thane seeking a declaration of being in continuous and peaceful possession of land in question as well as an injunction to restrain Respondent from disturbing Petitioners' possession. They also filed Revision Application before MRT challenging SDO's Order dtd. 18/9/2003. By impugned Judgement and Order dtd. 3/7/2010, MRT has proceeded to dismiss the Revision Application filed by the Petitioners. Aggrieved by the Tribunal's decision dtd. 3/7/2010, Petitioners have filed the present petition.