LAWS(BOM)-2026-1-205

SHANTABAI Vs. BHIKAN DAULAT CHOUDHARI

Decided On January 28, 2026
SHANTABAI Appellant
V/S
Bhikan Daulat Choudhari Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by the consent of the parties.

(2.) By way of present petition the petitioners assail order dtd. 13/09/2019 passed by learned President, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Tenancy Revision No.63/B/2012, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dtd. 27/09/2012 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Pachora in Tenancy Case No.130/2005 was confirmed.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioners Mr. Paresh Patil submits that the land Gut No.1/B/2 and land Gut No.1/B, Old Survey No.40 situated at Tarwade (Bk), Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon was originally owned by Krishnarao Shivram Pawar. The said land was given for cultivation on tenancy basis of Rs.100.00 to Dhondu Supdu Teli, who was protected tenant of the suit land. Mutation Entry No.781 was recorded to that effect in the record of rights. Grandfather of petitioner Nos.1-A to 1-D was cultivating the said land as a protected tenant and after his death his sons Damu Dhondu Teli and Namdeo Dhondu Teli, father of petitioner Nos.1-A to 1-D, were recorded as legal heirs of Dhondu Teli in the suit land and they cultivated the land as protected tenant. As the suit land is Class-6B Patil Inam land and to that effect Mutation Entry No.1743 was taken, there was prohibition to transfer the said land. Despite the prohibition, after death of husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.1-A to 1-D, by taking advantage of the fact that the present petitioners were minors original owner Krishnarao Shivram Pawar sold the said land in favour of father of respondent No.1 without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. While recording Mutation Entry No.1959 pursuant to the said transaction, the revenue authorities have clearly mentioned that permission was not taken prior to the sale transaction and the sale transaction is against the law . Therefore, the petitioners filed Tenancy Case No.130/2005 under the provisions Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for recovery of possession of the suit property.