Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Cannot Act as Appellate Authority While Exercising Revisional Powers Under Section 76:  Bombay High Court

Revisional Powers Under Section 76 Cannot Be Used to Reassess Facts –  In a significant ruling strengthening the protection of tenant rights under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the Bombay High Court set aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) that had wrongly reversed two concurrent decisions in favour of a tenant.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav, delivering the verdict in Writ Petition No. 1377 of 1998, made it emphatically clear that: “The MRT has exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy Act by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own findings for those recorded by the revenue authorities. This is wholly impermissible in law.”

The Court restored the orders passed by the Additional Tahsildar dated 10.07.1990 and the Assistant Collector dated 25.01.1991, which had declared the petitioner Khanderao Bhau Desai as the deemed purchaser of 5/8th share of the agricultural land situated at Village Kate Bhogaon, District Raigad, under Section 32G of the Act.

“Once Section 88C Exemption Is Granted for Partial Land, Tenant Becomes Deemed Purchaser of Balance” – Court Reiterates Settled Law

The dispute centered around the ownership and tenancy rights of agricultural land measuring 9 Acres 6 Gunthas, historically cultivated by the petitioner’s father, Bhau Tukaram Desai, as a tenant.

Crucially, the landlord Mahadeo Sripati Kadam had earlier filed for exemption under Section 88C, which was granted only to the extent of 3/8th share of the land through an order dated 30.04.1978, while the balance 5/8th share reverted to the tenant, under the statutory scheme of the Act.

Justice Jadhav categorically held:

“It is settled law that once an exemption under Section 88C is granted only for part of the land, the remaining portion automatically vests with the tenant, who is deemed to be the purchaser under Section 32G. The MRT’s failure to consider this legal effect constitutes a patent jurisdictional error.”

“MRT’s Revisional Jurisdiction Is Not an Appeal in Disguise” – Bombay High Court Criticizes Tribunal for Reassessing Evidence

Quoting extensively from the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Court reaffirmed that:

“The revisional jurisdiction is confined to correction of jurisdictional errors, failure to determine legal issues, or procedural irregularities leading to miscarriage of justice. It cannot extend to reappreciating evidence or overturning factual findings unless they are perverse.”

The Court found that the MRT completely ignored this limitation and wrongfully revisited the facts regarding possession, adoption, and ownership, which were already settled by the lower revenue authorities in favour of the petitioner.

Adoption Challenge Irrelevant to Tenancy Rights – Civil Court Already Upheld Adoption

Addressing the landlord's argument questioning the petitioner’s status as the adopted son of the original tenant, the Court observed:

“The challenge to adoption is irrelevant in the context of tenancy rights under the Maharashtra Tenancy Act. The registered adoption deed dated 23.05.1973 has already been upheld by the Civil Court in a decree dated 21.02.2009. An appeal against that is pending, but until overturned, it holds the field.”

The MRT had improperly ventured into this issue, despite it being beyond the scope of tenancy proceedings.

“Parallel Proceedings Are Impermissible” – High Court Disapproves Forum Shopping by Landlords

The Court sharply criticized the landlord's practice of initiating parallel civil proceedings after failing to secure favorable orders in tenancy courts. Justice Jadhav remarked:

“Filing multiple proceedings for the same cause of action, particularly when the Section 88C proceedings had already conclusively determined the shares, is impermissible. The MRT overlooked this fundamental principle.”

Orders of Revenue Authorities Restored – MRT’s Order Set Aside

Summarizing the decision, the Court ruled: “The MRT’s order dated 01.01.1998 is quashed and set aside. The orders dated 10.07.1990 passed by the Additional Tahsildar and 25.01.1991 by the Assistant Collector declaring the petitioner as deemed purchaser of 5/8th share are restored.”

While allowing the writ petition, the Court clarified that the private respondents are at liberty to pursue their remedies, if any, in appropriate civil proceedings.

Date of Decision: 30.06.2025