Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

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