Co-Sharer Seeking Title By Adverse Possession Must Prove Clear Ouster And Date When Possession Became Hostile: Punjab & Haryana High Court Private Un-Aided Schools Don't Need Prior Permission From DoE To Hike Fees At Start Of Academic Session: Delhi High Court Motherhood Not A Disability; Female Athletes Entitled To Maternity Accommodation: Delhi High Court Permits Vinesh Phogat To Participate In Asian Games Trials Section 362 CrPC Prohibits Review Of Judgment On Merits Once Signed; Recall Only For Procedural Errors: Allahabad High Court Court Is Guardian Of Deities: Calcutta High Court Grants Interim Protection In Shebaitship Dispute To Protect Property & Seva-Puja Order Rejecting Impleadment Of Third Party Based On Jurisdictional Plea Is Appealable Under Section 37 Arbitration Act: Bombay High Court Rape Allegation Made For First Time During Trial Without Mention In FIR Is A 'Material Improvement': Allahabad High Court Acquits Accused Suspension Of Govt Employee Requires Specific Evidence Of Individual Dereliction, Not Just Occurrence Of A Tragic Event: Karnataka High Court Municipal Authorities Obligated To Act Fairly While Deciding Rival Claims For Tenancy & Mutation: Calcutta High Court 21% Interest On Friendly Loan Is Unconscionable; Courts Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously Under Section 34 CPC: Delhi High Court Ante-Mortem Injuries & Lack Of Typical Ligature Mark Suggest Homicidal Hanging; Inmates Must Explain Death Inside House: Supreme Court Husband Must Explain Wife's Death Within Privacy Of Home; Mere Denial Inconsistent With Innocence: Supreme Court High Court Can Order Criminal Investigation To Protect Estate Even While Exercising Testamentary Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Revenue Must Prove Product's Suitability As Fuel For 'Motor Spirit' Classification; Supreme Court Dismisses Customs' Appeal Against Reliance Industries Imported 'n-Hexane' Is A Separate Chemically Defined Compound Classifiable Under Chapter 29, Not 'Motor Spirit' Under Chapter 27: Supreme Court Clarificatory Amendments To Industrial Policies Apply Retrospectively; Existing Units Cannot Claim Incentives Meant For New Enterprises: Supreme Court Promissory Estoppel Cannot Be Invoked To Claim Double Benefit Not Intended By Industrial Policy: Supreme Court Expert Medical Panels Must Include Peer Specialists To Evaluate Technical Nuances; Supreme Court Quashes Charges Against Anaesthetist Exoneration In Civil Proceedings On Merits Precludes Criminal Prosecution On Same Facts: Supreme Court Quashes Negligence Case Against Doctor Section 482 Quashing Not A Bar To Future Summoning Under Section 319 CrPC; No 'Double Jeopardy' Involved: Supreme Court Criminal Law Not An Instrument To Settle Familial Scores Against Husband’s Relatives Using Omnibus Allegations: Supreme Court Medical History In MRI Report Recorded For Diagnosis Cannot Override Consistent Testimony & FIR In Motor Accident Claims: Supreme Court MV Act Claims Must Be Decided On Preponderance Of Probability, Not Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court

Tenancy Rights on Watan Lands Protected Post Abolition Act: Supreme Court Upholds Tenants’ Right to Purchase”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court, in a significant judgment, upheld the rights of tenants over ‘Watan’ lands, post the implementation of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962, emphasizing the continued protection of tenancy rights and the right to purchase such lands. The Bench of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar delivered the landmark verdict in the case of Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. & others.

The crux of the judgment revolved around the interpretation and harmonious construction of three vintage legislations: the Maharashtra Hereditary Offices Act, 1874; the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; and the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962. The central issue was whether the tenancy rights over lands held under Watan status were legally valid on the date of the Abolition Act’s enactment.

The dispute involved the tenancy of Watan lands in the village of Chikhali. The tenants, predecessors of the respondents, were cultivating the lands since around 1955-56. After the original Watandar’s death, his legal heirs sought to reclaim possession under the 1874 Act. The conflict escalated through various legal channels, ultimately bringing into question the applicability of the Tenancy Act and the effect of the Abolition Act on the tenancy rights.

Validity of Tenancy Rights: The Supreme Court meticulously analyzed the three legislations. It concluded that the tenants’ rights were protected under the Tenancy Act and continued to subsist post the enactment of the Abolition Act. The Court emphasized, “The limited exemption from certain provisions of the Tenancy Act, afforded by Section 88CA thereof, continued until the Abolition Act came into force on 01.01.1963. Thereafter, as the very institution of Patel Watan stood abolished, the limited exemption extended to such Watan lands under Section 88CA of the Tenancy Act also ceased.”

Right to Purchase: The Court upheld the tenants’ right to purchase the Watan lands, recognizing the transition of their legal status following the regrant after the Abolition Act. The judgment clarified, “That right became operational on 27.11.1964, when these Watan lands were regranted to the heirs of the original Watandar.”

Invalidity of Orders under 1874 Act: The Court held that the orders under Sections 5, 11, and 11A of the 1874 Act concerning the recovery of possession from tenants were invalid after the introduction of the Tenancy Act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the tenants’ rights to purchase the tenanted agricultural Watan lands under the Tenancy Act following the enactment of the Abolition Act. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Date of Decision: March 14, 2024

Baban Balaji More (Dead) by LRs. & others v. Babaji Hari Shelar (Dead) by LRs. & others

Latest Legal News