Bombay High Court
Telgu Munnurwar Dnyanganga Trust … vs Laxman Yellappa Chittar, L.Rs. … on 26 March, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:13301
WP.8038-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8038 OF 2013
Telgu Munnurwar Dnyanganga Trust ]
Ghodnadi Through Its Trustees ]
1. Subhash s/o. Dattatraya Karle, ]
Age : 64 years, Occu. : Business & Agri. ]
R/o. 110, Legend Prestige, ]
Udya Baugh Road, Wanwadi, Pune -13 ]
2. Rajanna s/o Bhumanna Poshit, (Dead) ]
Age : 70 years, Occu : Business ]
3. Vijay Balkrishna Lolap, ]
Age : 58 years, Occu. : Business ]
R/o. 1042, State Bank Colony, Shirur, ]
Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune. ]
4. Baburao Sayanna Mutyal ]
Age : 80 years, Occu. : Retired. ]
5. Balkrishna Shankarrao Lolap (Dead) ]
Age : 85 years, Occu : Retired. ]
All R/o. Ghodnadi, Tal. Shirur, ]
District. Pune ] ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Laxman Yellappa Chittar ]
Kamathi D.H. ]
1-A Yellubai Laxman Chittar, ]
Deceased Through L.Rs. ]
Suresh Dattatray Koli (Dead) ]
Through its LRs. ]
1-A-a Smt. Sushila w/o Suresh Koli ]
Age : 55 years, Occu : Household ]
R/o. 1629, Subhash Chowk, ]
Dambe Nala, Near Barla Painter, ]
Shirur, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Pune. ]
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 1 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
1-A-b Dinesh S/o Suresh Koli, ]
Age : 32 years, Occu : Agril, ]
R/o. As above ]
1-A-c Kriti w/o Atul Telang, ]
Age : 35 years, Occu : Household, ]
R/o. 368, Mangalwar Peth, ]
Prabhakar Apartment, Flat No.11, ]
In front of Kamla Nehru Hospital, ]
Pune - 11. ]
1-A-d Ranjita w/o Ankush Sable, ]
Age : 30 years, Occu : Household, ]
R/o. Type-1, 58/1, in front of ]
Range Hills Jivan Health Club, ]
Khadki, Pune-20. ]
2. Tukaram Yellappa Chittar, ]
Died through L.Rs. ]
2A Arvind @ Ajinath Tukaram Chittar, ] Name of R. No.2A deleted
Died through L.R.s ] as per the Court's order
Alka Arvind @ Ajinath Chittar ] dated 03.01.2020.
2B Vinod Tukaram Chittar, ]
Age : 45 years, Occu : Business ]
2C Mrs. Alka Rawatoo, ]
Age : 35 years, Occu : Household ]
2D Mrs. Jyoti Shankar Aadi, ]
Age : 32 years, Occu : Household ]
2E Hirabai Tukaram Chittar (died) ]
All R/o. Sainath Lottery ]
Galande Chawl, Chinchwad, Pune ]
3. Yellappa Tukaram Chittar ] Name of R.No.3 deleted as
per the Court's order
dated 10.04.2014.
4. Gyanoba Yellappa Chittar (Died) L.R.s ]
4A Rajendra s/o Gyanoba Chittar, ]
Kamathi R/o. Kamathipura Lane No.6, ]
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 2 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Building No.45, Room No.1, Ground]
Floor, Padawalwar Building, Mumbai-8 ]
4B Rupesh s/o Gyanoba Chittar, ]
Kamathi R/o. Kamathipura Lane No.4, ]
Building No.135, Room No.16, ]
First Floor, Shanker Puppala ]
Road, Mumbai-8 ]
4C Rajeshri w/o Kishor Bhandar, ]
Kamathi R/o. Khetwadi, ]
Ashirwad Apartment, ]
Lane No.10, Third Floor, ]
Lane Pawwala Compund, ]
303, Khetwadi, Mumbai - 04. ]
5 Rammanna Yellappa Chittar, ]
Died through Lrs ]
5A Sayyanna Ramnna Chittar, ] Name of R. No. 5A
Age : Major, Occu : Business, ] deleted as per the Court's
R/o. Kurund, Tq. Parner, ] order dated 03.01.2020.
Dist. Ahmednagar ]
5B Baban Sayanna Chittar, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Business, ]
R/o. As above ]
5C Chandrakant Sayanna Chitter, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Business, ]
R/o. As above ]
5D Prakash Sayanna Chitter, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Business, ]
R/o. As above ]
5E Smt. Ratan Vasant Erram, ]
Age : Major, Occu. : Retired, ]
R/o. 14, Shankar Pupala Road, ]
Building No.30, 2nd Floor, H. No.12, ]
Nagpada, Mumbai. ]
6 Shivaji Yellappa Chittar, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Business, ]
R/o. Munnurwar Co-operative ]
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 3 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Hsg. Society, Near Marathi ]
School, Wadgaon Sheri, Pune. ]
7. Shankar Yellappa Chittar, ]
Died through Lrs. ]
7A Sanjay Shankar Chitter, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
7B Lalita Venktesh Katol, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
7C Shobha Shankar Chitter, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
7D Pramila Narayan Telang, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
7E Mangala Shankar Chitter, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
7F Rekha Lakhpati, ]
Age : Major, Occu : Household ]
All R/o. Kamathipura, Lane No.8,]
Building No.43, Room No.7, Byculla,]
Mumbai-8. ]
8. Janabai Rajaram Sidhap, ]
(Died) deleted as per order dated]
08.07.2013 ] ...Respondents
***
Mr. R. N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. P. S. Dighe i/b Mr. Vikram
Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Ms. Pradnya Talekar i/b Talekar & Associates, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
1A-a to 1A-d and 2B to 2D and 4A to 4C.
Mr. Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5-C, 5-D,6 7-B, 7-C, 7-
D, and 7-F.
***
CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.
RESERVED ON : 7th JANUARY, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 26th MARCH, 2026
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 4 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner – Trust through its Trustees challenge the orders
dated 16th August 2013, passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal (for short the “Tribunal”), whereby it dismissed the Revision
Petition No.1-B of 1998, filed by them against the Respondents and
confirmed the order dated 31st December 1992, passed by the Tahsildar,
Parner, quashing the order dated 30th March 1996 passed by the learned Sub
Divisional Officer, Ahmednagar. They also challenge the order dated 15 th
April 1978, passed U/Ss 32 G and H of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (in short, the “Tenancy Act“), by the Additional
Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal (for short, ALT), Parner.
2. The facts of the case are as follows:
The Petitioner, a public Trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trust Act, 1950, through its Trustees, has filed this Petition. It is
contended that the property in dispute, i.e. lands bearing Survey Nos. 88
and 89 admeasuring 45 acres 1 guntha, situated at the village Kurund, Tal.
Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar (in short ” writ lands/property”). The said property
was renumbered as Gut No. 346.
3. On 1st June, 1905, one Nagammabai Adiwar, as a guardian of
Gyanu Tukaram Karle, donated the property in favour of the panch
committee of the Munnurwar community, namely 1) Chinu Limbaji Samal,
2) Bandu Sayanna Lolap, 3) Damana Dharmaji Nalla, 4) Chinu Narsu
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 5 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Puppal, 5) Narsu Jally Lolap, 6) Yellappa Chittar and 7) Chinu Rauanna
Aspat by way of a registered Gift Deed. As per the terms in the Gift Deed,
the said property was donated for charitable purposes, and the income from
the said property was to be applied for the benefit of Hindu Temples
unanimously and other noble causes. In the year 1945, one
panch/committee member, Chinu Limbaji Samal, died, and his legal heir,
Ramanna Jalanna Lolap, was appointed as a panch/member of the
committee by order of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 23 rd October 1945.
Accordingly, mutation entry No. 414 was taken on 8th January, 1946.
4. In 1950, the Bombay Public Trust Act (for short, the ” Trust Act”)
was enacted for the Bombay Region. Four panchas/members of the
committee, i.e. Rajanna Malanna Bhoir, 2) Balkrishna Shankar Lolap, 3)
Laxman Yellapa Chittar, and 4) Babu Sayanna, filed an application before
the Assistant Charity Commissioner on 14 th April, 1952, to register the said
Trust as “Telgu Munnurwar Dnyanganga Trust”. (for short, the “Trust”) The
property in question was shown as Trust property. Accordingly, Inquiry No.
1231 of 1952 was registered, and on 12 th May 1953, the Trust was
registered. The property in question was shown as the Trust property and in
possession of the panchas.
5. It is further contended that one of the Trustees, Laxman
Chittar, illegally and with malafide intention had entered his name and the
name of his brother in the other right column as “tenant of the Trust
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 6 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
property”. In the year 1965, an Additional Mamlatdar initiated proceedings
under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act wherein Laxman and his brother
Tukaram, the sons of Yellapa Chittar, were shown as tenants, and Ramanna
Jalanna was shown as landlord of the Trust property. On 14 th August 1965,
the Additional Tahsildar and ALT, Parner, passed an order that “tenants are
unwilling to purchase the properties in question and therefore declined the
purchase as ineffective. Accordingly, the proceedings under section 32G of
the Tenancy Act were dropped, and the proceedings under section 32B were
initiated. Accordingly, mutation entry No. 848 was recorded in the revenue
records of the village of Kurund. On 12th July 1966, in the said proceedings,
the Trustee was not made a party as the owner of the property in question,
as the alleged tenants sought to grab the Trust property.
6. In 1975, the third brother of Laxman and Tukaram, i.e.,
Gyanoba Yellappa Chittar, filed Tenancy Appeal No. 130 of 1975 before the
Special Land Acquisition Officer without filing an application for
condonation of delay. In the said proceeding, Gyanoba also deliberately and
with malafide intention did not make the Trust a party in the said appeal.
The said appeal was allowed on 8th July, 1977, behind the Trust’s back.
Moreover, prior to the filing of the said appeal, the Respondents Ramanna
and Mallanna had died. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an
order without recording any reasons and remanded the matter to the Courts
below to give an opportunity to the Appellant, Gyanoba, to put up his case.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 7 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
7. After remanding the matter, Laxman, Tukaram, and Gyanoba,
in collusion with each other, appeared before the Additional Tahsildar,
Parner. In the said proceeding, Laxman and Gyanoba were shown as the
Petitioners/Applicants and the said application was filed against one
Ramanna Jallanna Kamathi, who was admittedly shown as dead. The Trust
was also not made a party to the said proceedings. On 15 th April 1978, the
Tahsildar allowed the said proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy
Act in favour of the alleged tenants, namely Laxman, Tukaram and Gyanoba.
The Additional Tahsildar fixed the purchase price of the property in question
in the said proceeding to the extent of 38 A 20 G out of the property in
question and declared the remaining land to the extent of 5A 19 G to be
ineffective.
8. Against the said order dated 15th April 1978, Gyanoba again
preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 4 of 1979 before the Assistant Collector
regarding the purchase price of the writ lands on the ground that the
Tahsildar had not visited the site before fixing the purchase price. In light of
the observations made in the said order, the appeal was partly allowed, and
the matter was remanded back to the Tahsildar to determine the purchase
price afresh.
9. After the matter was remanded to the Tahsildar, for the first
time, Gyanoba and his brother made the Petitioner Trust as the Respondent.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 8 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
On 31st December 1992, the Tahsildar, Parner, passed an order, fixing the
purchase price, and directed Tukaram and Gyanoba, who had purchased the
tenanted land, to deposit the said amount in the tenancy proceedings. The
Petitioner Trust challenged the said order before the Assistant Collector –
Sub Divisional Officer, Parner, who, by order dated 30 th March 1996,
allowed the appeal filed by the Petitioners, quashed and set aside the order
passed by the Tahsildar, and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar.
10. The Petitioner, being dissatisfied with the order dated 30 th
March 1996, preferred Revision Application No. 1 of 1998 before the
Maharashtra Regional Tribunal, Pune (in short, ” Tribunal”). The Tribunal
vide order dated 28th November, 2000, allowed the Revision Application and
set aside the orders passed in Tenancy Appeals Nos. 2 of 1995 and 3 of 1995
by the SDO, Ahmadnagar, as well as the order passed by the Tahsildar,
Parner. Being aggrieved by the said order, Laxman and others preferred Writ
Petition No. 7229 of 2004 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 25th
April 2008, allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the order dated 28 th
November 2000, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh
consideration.
11. After the matter was remanded, the Respondents, with mala
fide intent, illegally began selling the Trust property. Hence, the Petitioner
was constrained to file an application to restrain them from alienating the
Trust property and to seek an order from the Tribunal to maintain the status
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 9 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
quo, which was continued from time to time until the Petition was disposed
of. Thereafter, the matter was finally heard by the Tribunal on 16 th August
2013, the Tribunal dismissed the Revision by confirming the order dated 31 st
December 1992 passed by the Tahsildar. The Tribunal also quashed and set
aside the order dated 30th March 1996, passed by the SDO. Being aggrieved
by the said order and other orders, the Petitioners have preferred this
Petition.
12. It is to be noted that by order dated 11 th July 2014, this Court
granted Rule. In paragraph No. 4 of the said order this Court framed the
moot question as to “whether the Petitioner-Trust is entitled to claim
exemption in view of Section 88B(2) of the Tenancy Act regarding the Trust
property and whether the Respondents are entitled to purchase the Trust
property in view of the provisions of the said Act ” and observed that the said
question required to be answered. The said interim order was continued till
this date.
13. Heard Mr. Dhorde, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioners, and Ms. Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
Nos. 1A-a to 1A-d, 2B to 2d, and 4A to 4C, as well as Mr. Kulkarni, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5-C, 5-D,6 7-B, 7-C, 7-D, and 7-F.
14. The thrust of the arguments of Mr. Dhorde, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Petitioners, was that the original Respondents
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 10 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Nos. 1 and 2, Laxman Yellappa Chittar and Tukaram Yellappa Chittar, had
committed fraud upon the revenue authorities and the Trust and had
obtained orders dated 15th April 1978 and 31st December 1992. He further
canvassed that the order dated 15 th April 1978 was cryptic and unreasoned
and was passed against a dead person; hence, declaring Respondent Nos. 1
and 2 as the tenants of the Trust property and holding them to be entitled to
purchase the land in question is illegal and void. Moreover, the Petitioner
Trust was neither a party to the proceedings nor was notice issued to it; by
means of fraud, an order was obtained behind its back, and therefore, the
order cannot be sustained in law. After full payment of the purchase price
under Section 32H of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1948 (for short “Tenancy Act“), and by order dated 31 st December 1992, it
was held that Respondent No.1 – Laxman Yellappa, Respondent No.3 –
Yellappa Tukaram and Respondent No.4 Gyanoba Yellappa be declared as
purchasers of the land in question under the provisions of the Tenancy Act
subject to conditions embodied under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. Both
orders are contrary to the material on record, and therefore, those orders
are liable to be set aside.
15. During the arguments, he took me through the registered Gift
Deed dated 01st June 1905 and pointed out the averment therein. He
showed that one Nagammabai Adiwar had gifted the lands in question to
Chinnu, s/o Limbaji Samal (Chittar), and six others as Panchas. Thereafter,
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 11 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
he pointed out that mutation entry No. 414 for Village Kurund indicates that
one of the Pancha, Chinnu Kamathi, had died, and his name was replaced
with that of Rajanna/Ramanna Jallanna Lolap as a Pancha. He took me
through the application dated 14th April 1952, filed by the four persons, i.e.
Panchas and based on the said application, on 12 th May 1953, the Trust was
registered by the Assistant Charity Commissioner (for short, ‘ ACC’), and the
land in question was shown as a Trust property in Schedule I of the Bombay
Public Trust Act. Respondent No.1 – Laxman was shown as one of the
Trustees of the Trust. He pointed out from Schedule I that the land in
question had been in the possession of Panchas since 07 th April 1952. He
further canvassed that neither the gift deed nor Schedule I indicates that the
said property was in possession of the Panchas by virtue of the Gift Deed
dated 01st June 1905.
16. He then propounded that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2
fraudulently filed the application before the Authorities under Section 32 G
of the Tenancy Act. They have filed the proceedings against the dead
Rammanna /Rajanna and Mallanna. They had neither made the Trust a
party nor served any notice on the Trust. Despite this, they have shown the
deceased Rammanna/Rajanna and Mallanna as a Trustee as Respondents
and without issuing any notice/s recorded the findings that the tenancy is
supported by the “Entry in the other Rights Column of the Revenue Record
of the 7/12 Extract” from the year 1953-1954 to 1963-1964 and observed
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 12 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
that the tenant admits that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the tenants and by
recording a finding in point No. 2 observed that the tenant had refused to
purchase the lands. Therefore, he contended that no documents were
produced before the Authority to show that the said land was leased out,
nor were any resolutions placed on record to show that the Trustee had
resolved to lease out the said property. No sanction order was produced on
record. Therefore, as per section 36 of the Tenancy Act, the said order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. He took me through Section
36(1A) of the Tenancy Act. He further submitted that although the brothers
were shown as tenants, the Additional Tahsildar held that the tenants were
unwilling to purchase the suit lands and declared the proceedings under
Section 32G were dropped. The order dated 14 th August 1965 had attained
finality.
17. Learned Senior Counsel drew my attention to the Tenancy
Appeal No.130 of 1975, which was filed by Gyanoba Yellappa Chittar,
showing as appellant and argued that Gyanoba was not a party to the
proceedings under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the question
of his preferring the appeal doesn’t arise at all; moreover, he had not filed
any application for condonation of delay, nor does it emerge from the order
dated 16th February 1987 that the concerned Authority has condoned the
delay. Therefore, passing of the order under Appeal No.130 of 1975 for
remanding the matter is illegal and perverse. The Authority has not
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 13 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
recorded any reason as to why the tenancy appeal is maintainable after 11
years, nor has it explained how the appellant, Gyanoba, had the right to
prefer said Appeal. In fact, Gyanoba was not the tenant and therefore had
no right to challenge the said order. In the said appeal, he had made
Rammanna/Rajanna and Mallanna as parties, both of whom died in 1962.
In the said order, he pointed out that Yellappa died in 1953; therefore, he
contended that nothing had been discussed by the Authority, nor had any
reasons been recorded for setting aside the order dated 14 th August 1965
and remanded the matter to the Authority.
18. He further drew my attention to the proceedings before the
Additional Tahsildar, filed under Section 32 G of the Tenancy Act. He
pointed out that the proceedings were filed against the deceased,
Rammanna/Rajanna, thereby playing a fraud upon the Authority and the
Trust. In the said proceedings, the Trust was not made a party. Similarly,
Respondent No. 1 – Laxman and Respondent No. 2 – Tukaram had not
challenged the order dated 14th August 1965; therefore, the said order had
attained finality. No issues were framed by the concerned Authority
regarding the tenancy or the period during which they had cultivated the
land as tenants. Apart from that, the Authority had not considered how it
came to possess the lands in question. On the contrary, he pointed out that
the landowners’ addresses were not traceable. The said order clearly shows
a lack of application of mind by the Additional Tahsildar while passing the
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 14 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
order dated 15th April 1978; therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in
the eyes of the law.
19. Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel, further argued that in TNC
Appeal No.4 of 1979, preferred by one Gyanoba, had not made a Trust as a
party in the appeal, and he had no concern with the order dated 15 th April
1978. However, the Assistant Collector did not consider that no rent receipt
was produced on record, nor had the tenants paid the rent at any time, and,
without assigning any reason, passed a cryptic, unreasoned order. The
appeal was partly allowed, and the matter was remanded by an order dated
16th February 1987. The said order itself indicates that Laxman, Tukaram,
and Gyanoba had committed fraud upon the authorities and the Trust, by
not making the Trust a party and by not disclosing the correct facts to the
Authority. He then took me through the judgment and order dated 31 st
December 1992, passed by the Tahsildar, Parner, and contended that, for the
first time, Laxman and his brothers made the Trust a party to the said
proceedings. Similarly, the said Appeal was preferred by Gyanoba, not by
Laxman or Tukaram. He further referred to the findings recorded in the said
judgment and pointed out that the Tahsildar, based on the oral submissions,
passed the order without scrutinizing the tenancy documents. It has been
observed that the Trust was established on 12 th May 1953, before 01st April
1957. He has drawn my attention to further findings that the Tahsildar erred
in casting the negative burden on the Trust, namely that the Trust had not
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 15 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
initiated proceedings to cancel the tenancy. In fact, Laxman and others had
not produced any documents on record to show how they became tenants;
therefore, the said findings cannot be sustained under the law. He further
submitted that Rammanna/Rajanna died on 14 th December 1962, and
without his legal heirs being brought on record, the enquiry was conducted;
therefore, the said enquiry is null and void. As such, the order passed by the
Tahsildar directing Laxman and others to deposit the amount as calculated
as per Section 32 K (2) of the Tenancy Act with the Government cannot be
sustained in the eyes of the law. He further contended that the said order is
contrary to the facts on record and is therefore liable to be set aside.
20. The learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that, for the
first time in 1992, the Trust became aware of the proceedings; therefore, the
Trust preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 1995 before the Assistant Collector
to challenge the judgment and order dated 15 th April 1978. He has taken
pains to point out that the grounds raised by the Trust before the SDO were
not considered, and that the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) has partly allowed
the appeal vide order dated 30th March 1996, whereby the order dated 15th
April 1978 was quashed and set aside, and the matter was remanded back
to the Tahsildar.
21. He further submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated
30th March 1996, passed by the SDO, the Trust preferred a revision
application under Section 76 of the Tenancy Act before the Tribunal, the
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 16 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Tribunal vide order dated 28th November 2000, allowed the Revision
Application and set aside the order passed by the SDO in Tenancy Appeal
Nos. 2 of 1995 and 3 of 1995. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by
the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 – Laxman and others have preferred a Writ
Petition bearing No. 7229 of 2004. This Court, after hearing the parties, vide
judgment and order dated 25th April 2008, quashed and set aside the order
passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a
fresh hearing.
22. Learned Senior Counsel further invited my attention to the
order dated 16th August 2013, passed by the Tribunal, and strenuously
argued that clause 3 of the impugned order is contrary to clause 1; as such,
the said order is patently perverse. He further submitted that nobody had
challenged the order dated 31st December 1992. In clause 2, the learned
Tribunal has confirmed the said order; in fact, it was not necessary to do so.
As such, he submitted that the Court could read between the lines to
ascertain why the said order was passed, when no one had asked for
confirmation of the order dated 31st December 1992. He further drew my
attention to the order dated 16 th August 2013 and contended that no
reasons were assigned while passing the order, nor was there any discussion
as to how Laxman and others became tenants; therefore, the said order
cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 17 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
23. Learned Senior Counsel pointed out Section 4 of the Tenancy
Act and submitted that, as per Section 4, a person who is lawfully
cultivating any land belonging to another person is deemed to be a tenant.
He emphasised the words “lawfully cultivating any land” and submitted that
nothing has been brought on record to show that Laxman and others were
lawfully cultivating the land as tenants; therefore, it cannot be said that they
were deemed tenants.
24. The learned Senior Counsel further took me through Section 32
G (2) of the Tenancy Act and submitted that to determine the price of the
land to be paid by the tenants, it was incumbent upon the Authority to issue
notices to all landlords, but no notices were issued to the Trust or landlords
however behind the back of the Trust the Respondent -Laxman and his
brothers have obtained the orders; therefore, the order cannot be sustained
in the eyes of the law. He drew my attention to clause 4 of Section 32 of the
Tenancy Act and submitted that the landlord was not given an opportunity
of being heard, thereby violating the provisions of Section 32G of the
Tenancy Act.
25. He further contended that the Revenue Authority has not dealt
with the issue as to who inducted the Respondent as a tenant in the land in
question, nor has it considered how the Trustee can be a tenant. Moreover,
the order dated 15th April 1978 was passed against a dead person, and
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 18 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
hence, the said order is null and void. To buttress his submissions, he has
relied upon judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kisu @ Ram Kishu
(dead) through LRS vs. Bihar (Dead) By Lrs., (2005) 6 SCC 300; (page no.36)
and Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) Through LRS Vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and others ,
(2008) 8 SCC 521; (page No.39) and pointed out the headnotes ‘A’ and ‘C’ of
the respective judgments and submitted that in view of the law laid down in
the said judgments, the order passed against a dead person is null and void.
26. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. Vs. Government A.P. and Ors;
AIR 2007 SC 1546; (page No.13) and took me through the headnote ‘A’ and
paragraph Nos. 38 to 42 and 46 and T. Vijendradas and Another vs. M.
Subramanian and Others; 2008(1) ALL MR 446 (S.C.); (page No.25) and
pointed out headnotes ‘B, D, E’ and paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5, 10 and 14, 27,
28 34 and 37 and submitted that once it is established that a successful
party obtained an order by playing fraud is required to be vitiated likewise
such order cannot be held legal, valid and in-consonance with law. Such an
order is non-est and cannot be allowed to stand, and therefore, it is
submitted that the said order is illegal. He also pointed out from the record
that the Respondent, Laxman, and his brothers, without making the Trust a
party, committed fraud upon the Authority as well as the Trust and obtained
the orders. Therefore, those orders are non-est and vitiated. He further
submitted that the judgment of T. Vijendradas (supra) is identical to the case at
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 19 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
hand and therefore, the law laid down therein is squarely applicable.
27. The learned Senior Counsel further argued that it is the duty of
the litigant to disclose all material and correct facts before the Court or
Authorities. Non-disclosure of material and correct information before the
Authority amounts to an abuse of the process of law. To buttress his
submission, he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education
Society and others (page No.35A) reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531; and
pointed out head note ‘B, C, D’, paragraph Nos. ’42 to 47′ and 51.
28. He then canvassed that if the property belongs to the Trust in
such circumstances, the provisions of Section 88 B of the Maharashtra Public
Trusts Act (for short, the “Trust Act”) are applicable. The tenant could not
purchase the property because the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R of the
Tenancy Act do not apply. Similarly, there is no requirement to produce a
certificate under Section 88B of the Trust Act in a Civil Suit while
determining the question in dispute. To buttress his submission, he has
relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dhanappa Balappa Sawale, deceased,
through Legal Heirs & Ors. Vs. Gurulingeshwar Devasthan , 2011(3) Bom. C.R. 109
(page No. 1) and pointed out the headnote and paragraph Nos. 7 and 8, and
in the case of Poulad Deochand Patil Vs. Samasta Aher Nhavi Panch Trust and
another; 1992 Mh. L. J. 412; (page No.7); and pointed out the headnote ‘A’.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 20 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
29. He further submitted that if any person is in possession of the
land in question without the landlord’s consent, then he cannot be said to be
a tenant, but can only be termed a trespasser. In support of his submission,
he has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneksha
Ardeshir Irani and another Vs. Manekji Eduji Mistry and others ; AIR 1974 SC 2123;
(page no.10). On the point of delay in filing the appeal, he contended that
in absence of filing of an application for condonation of delay, it cannot be
said that the delay is deemed to have been condoned and submitted that the
order dated 14th August 1965 was challenged after a period of 10 years
without filing an application for condonation of delay. No order was passed
about the condonation of delay. As such, the appeal filed in 1975 is liable to
be dismissed on the ground that the Appeal was barred by the limitation. In
Support of his submissions, he has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Ragho Singh v. Mohan Singh and others, 2001 AIR SCW 2351
(page no.47).
30. Lastly, he harped on the point that the Respondent, Laxman,
and others had obtained the orders from the Revenue Authorities by playing
fraud upon them as well as upon the Trust. The Authorities passed those
orders without considering the material facts on record and without
scrutinising the documents. Therefore, said orders cannot be sustained in
the eyes of the law. Accordingly, the petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is maintainable. This Court is empowered to entertain
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 21 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
the impugned judgment and order. To buttress his submission, he has relied
on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gopala Ganu Wagale Vs. Shri
Nageshwardeo Patas Abhishekh Anusthan Trust, Patas , (1978) 2 SCC 47; (page
no.48); and submitted that in view of the law laid down in the said
judgment, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is
maintainable.
31. The sum and substance of the arguments of learned Senior
Counsel was that the Respondents – Laxman was the Trustee of the Trust;
however, he has suppressed the said fact from the Court and, in collusion
with his brothers, has concealed the material facts and fraudulently
obtained orders from the Authorities i.e. without making the Trust as a party
or behind the back of the Trust o. Therefore, he urged that the matter be
remanded back to the concerned Authority for a fresh hearing.
32. Per Contra, Ms. Talekar, learned counsel, strenuously argued
that the petitioner Trust had not pleaded fraud in its application before the
Tribunal. Instead, only the grounds raised by the petitioner Trust were
recorded in paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said application, and she drew
my attention to paragraph Nos. 8 and 9. Therefore, she emphasised,
“whether a question of fraud can be raised in the writ jurisdiction for the
first time in the absence of the pleading or whether this Court can entertain
the said pleading in Writ Jurisdiction for the first time. ” She further pointed
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 22 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
out the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal in Revision Application No. 1-B
of 1998.
33. She canvassed that this Court by an order dated 11 th July 2014,
framed the moot question, which is required to be answered i.e. “whether
petitioner – Trust is entitled to claim exemption in view of Sec.88-B(2) of
Tenancy Act regarding the Trust property” and “whether the Respondents
are entitled to purchase the Trust property in view of provisions of the said
Act” and accordingly granted the ‘Rule’. On the point of fraud, she
contended that merely alleging fraud is not sufficient; the Petitioners must
establish the intention to deceive the Petitioners or the Court, from the
material on record, and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that
Respondents have played a fraud upon them and the Court.
34. She further argued that no issue regarding the tenancy was
raised before the Tribunal; therefore, the question of dealing with the same
doesn’t arise before the Tribunal. She also drew my attention to Section 3(8)
(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, 1939 and submitted that the said Act came
into force in 1948 and pointed out Section 89A of the said Act, i.e. removal
of doubt.
35. She took me through the order dated 14th August 1965 (page
No. 38) and submitted that the Additional Tahsildar had suo motu taken
cognizance and initiated proceedings; however, no notice was issued to
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 23 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Gyanoba, i.e., the brother of Laxman and Tukaram, in whose name the
lands were recorded as a tenant. The Additional Tahsildar never issued the
notice to him in accordance with the law. The Additional Tahsildar, after
considering the material before him, dropped the proceedings under Section
32G of the Tenancy Act and directed that proceedings under Section 32P be
initiated. The order itself indicates that the Additional Tahsildar himself
initiated the proceedings under Section 32P. Then she has drawn my
attention to Tenancy Appeal No. 130 of 1975 and pointed out grounds
raised by the Gyanoba in the said proceedings, i.e. ground Nos. 1 to 3 as
mentioned in the said order and after considering the said grounds, on 08 th
July 1977, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Minor Project),
Ahmednagar (page No.64), has passed an order and remanded the matter to
the Additional Tahsildar to give an opportunity to the appellant, i.e.
Gyanoba, to put his case. The Trust has not challenged the said order to
date; therefore, it remains unchallenged. She further argued that in the
7/12 extract or revenue record, only Rammanna’s name was reflected, and
in the ownership column, except for his name, nobody’s name appeared in
the revenue record; therefore, the question of issuance of notice to the Trust
or other persons doesn’t arise. Therefore, the Additional Tahsildar, in its
order dated 15th April 1978, observed that, as the legal heirs of Rammanna
Jallanna, deceased, were not recorded in the revenue record, the question of
issuing notice to them or the Trust did not arise at all.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 24 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
36. Moreover, learned counsel for the Respondents drew my
attention to the order dated 16 th February 1987, passed in TNC Appeal
No.04 of 1979, read the relevant paragraph in the said order, and submitted
that it is observed therein that rent was paid until 01st April 1957.
Thereafter, the tenant paid no rent. The Tahsildar has also included the rent
due after the tiller’s date. The said order has also not been challenged by the
Trust; in fact, it is a crucial order affecting the parties’ rights that has
remained unchallenged.
37. Thereafter, she pointed out the order dated 31 st December 1992
and submitted that the petitioner Trust was aware of the order passed in
Tenancy Appeal No. 04 of 1979 on 18 th July 1987. Still, the Trust did not
challenge the same until the year 1995, nor was an application filed for
condonation of delay, nor was an explanation given about the said delay.
The learned counsel further took me through page Nos. 72, 73 and 73A of
the order dated 31st December 1992, and submitted that the learned
Additional Tahsildar has dealt with every aspect and held that the order
dated 15th April 1978, passed by the Additional Tahsildar, is still in force or
existence, thus, the said order is just and proper and no interference is
required in it.
38. She further advanced arguments that the Petitioners have never
raised doubt or objections regarding the tenancy of the Respondents, nor
have they alleged that the Respondents had played a fraud upon the Court
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 25 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
or the Petitioners; therefore, the question of answering all those
doubts/objections by the concerned Authorities doesn’t arise.
39. The learned counsel took me through the applications filed by
the Petitioners before the Assistant Collector and SDO, Parner, and pointed
out that the Petitioners have raised only two grounds, i.e., first, that no
notices were issued to the Petitioners, or that no opportunity was given to
them to contest the matter. Behind their back, the orders were passed.
Second ground was raised that the land in question belongs to the Trust and
therefore the provisions of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act do not apply to the
present proceedings. Therefore, while passing the order, the SDO framed
the issues, answered them vide the order dated 30 th March 1996, and
remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. She further
showed an order dated 31st December 1992 and drew my attention to an
order dated 30th March 1996.
40. Thereafter, she referred to an application filed before the
Tribunal by the Petitioners and evince ground Nos. 8 and 9 in the said
application. The Tribunal, while passing the order dated 16 th August 2013,
framed points for determination and recorded its findings; therefore, she
canvassed that the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal is proper. She has
shown the last four lines from paragraph No. 10 and the finding in
paragraph No.11. So, she propounded that the Tribunal in its order has
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 26 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
observed that the Trust had not obtained the certificate as per Section 88
(2) of the Tenancy Act and had not shown that the income of the Trust was
being utilized for religious/charity purpose and passed an order accordingly.
Then she read Section 88 B (1) (b) (2) and sub clause (2) of the said Act
and submitted that the Petitioners had not produced any documents
regarding carrying out the audit report as mandated in the said Section.
Thus, the Trust failed to comply with the provisions of Section 88 B (1) of
the Tenancy Act.
41. To buttress her submissions, she has relied on judgments along
with the compilation of judgments dated 06 th November 2025 and referred
to the relevant paragraphs in the said judgments and submitted that in view
of the judgments of this Court in Yakub Baig Trust Panvel Erstwhile Mominpada
Masjid Yakub Baig Trust, Through its Chief Trustee Muzaffar Mustafa Baig Vs. Ganu
Mahadu Gaikar and others; 2024 SCC Online Bom 2486 and Chhatrapati Charitable
Devasthan Trust. Vs. Parisa Appa Bhoske and others; 1979 Mh. L. J. 163 , the
Petitioners have not applied for the exemption certificate under Section 88
to date. On the point of limitation, she relied upon judgments of this Court
in Pandurang Sakharam Gavali (since deceased) through Legal Heirs Sunita Vilas
Gavali & Ors. Vs. Balwant Shankar Gadave (since deceased) through Legal Heirs
Rekha Sagar Gaikwad & Ors. (judgment and order dated 14 th February 2023, passed
in Writ Petition No.7315 of 1999) and Udhav Jayram Katarnavare, since deceased by
his L.Rs. Varubai Udhav Katarnavare & Ors. Vs. Bhima Jungal Katarnavare and Ors.;
1999 SCC OnLine Bom 450 and submitted that as per law laid down in
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 27 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Pandurang Sakharam Gavali (supra), there is no limitation period prescribed to
pay the purchase price. Unless the positive steps are shown to be taken
under Section 32 P of the Act, the period of limitation does not commence
for the tenant’s rights to be declared as owner and pay the purchase price.
Per contra, she canvassed that as per dictum in Uddhav (supra), Petitioner
Trust being landlords had to give sufficient reasons for condoning the delay
in preferring the proceedings and submitted that in the year 1988, the
Petitioners had the knowledge, however, till the year 1995 they did not take
any steps, neither preferred any appeal against the said order nor showed
sufficient reasons for causing the delay in preferring the Appeal. Therefore,
the proceedings filed by the Petitioners are barred by the law of limitation.
42. On the point of fraud, she relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Harjas Rai Makhija (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives Vs. Pushparani Jain & Anr. (2017) 2 SCC 797 and referred to
paragraph No. 20 of the said judgment. As such, she argued that ‘ a mere
concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald allegation
of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree
obtained by a party as fraudulent.’
43. On the point of scope and powers of the Superintendent under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, reliance was placed on judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohan Amba Prasad Agnihotri & Ors. Vs. Bhaskar
Balwant Aher (D) Through Lrs.; (2000) 3 SCC 190, Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 28 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Rai & Ors.; (2003) 6 SCC 675 and Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and
Others Vs. Vivek V. Gawde, etc., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3722 , and referred to the
relevant paragraphs therein. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of
this Court in Shri. Hanuman Maruti Mandir Deosthan Trust, Kumshet, Taluka –
Junnar, District – Pune & Ors Vs. Sau. Vina Yogesh Doke & Ors. (passed in Writ
Petition No.5567 of 2017 dated 25th November 2024) and drew my attention to
paragraph Nos. 35 and 36 of the said judgment and submitted that in view
of the observations made in the said judgment, the Tribunal should be
considered to be vested with such incidental or ancillary powers, unless
there is any indication in the statute to the contrary. Lastly she urged that in
view of the law laid down in the above judgments, this Court has very
limited power to interfere in the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal,
so also mere recording the property in the schedule-I is not enough to
exempt the same from the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act,
the property has to be recorded in certificate issued under Section 88 B of
the Tenancy Act, however, the Petitioners had not applied for such a
certificate under Section 88 B to date. Also, before the registration of the
Trust, the Respondents were the protected tenants of the land in question;
therefore, they are deemed to be purchasers within the meaning of Section
88B of the Tenancy Act. The Petitioners have not raised any ground
regarding tenancy or fraud in the application filed before the concerned
Authorities. Therefore, she urged that, in view of the law laid down in the
above-cited judgments, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 29 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
44. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 5
to 7 has drawn my attention to the order dated 31 st December 1992, passed
by the Tahsildar, Parner and referred to the observations made in the
judgment (page Nos.71 and 72) and submitted that till 12 th November
1991, the petitioner – Trust’s name was never mutated in the revenue record
and the first time vide Mutation Entry No.478, the name of the petitioner –
Trust was recorded in the revenue record. He pointed out Mutation Entry
No. 478 (at page No. 45). Then he pointed out an entry in the Record of
Right of the Revenue Record (page No. 44) and showed entry No. 77 from
the said document, and submitted that the said entry was recorded on 28th
June 1975. By the said entry, the Circle Officer has brought the name of
LRs. of deceased Yellappa on record, which includes the names of original
Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 7, and canvassed that the said entry itself
indicates that Yellappa was the tenant, who died on 04 th April 1953, and
therefore, his LRs. were brought on record. He adopted the remaining points
of argument advanced by Ms. Talekar, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.
1A-a to 1A-d and 2B to 2d and 4A to 4C.
45. Mr. Dhorde, learned Senior Counsel in reply, has tendered a
copy of the written submissions on behalf of the petitioner along with the
judgment of this Court in Arjun s/o Bhimaji Lakare (deceased) through LRs. & Anr.
Vs. Hindustani Momin Banarasi Jaatiche Panch Mandali & Anr.; 2014(3) Mh.L.J.870
and judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Randhir Kaur (Deceased)
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 30 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Through her Lrs. Vs. Balwinder Kaur & Ors.; AIR 2019 SC 2793 . The learned Senior
Counsel pointed out page No. 37 of the petition and submitted that no
documents were produced before the Authority at the time of the first
proceeding. Accordingly, said documents cannot be considered in the writ
petition. Then he took me through paragraph No.3.11 of the judgment in
Randhir Kaur (supra) and submitted that, in view of the law laid down in the
said judgment, additional documents cannot be produced in the writ
petition, which were never produced before the concerned Authorities. The
learned Senior Counsel further pointed out the last two lines on page No. 84
of the petition and drew my attention to headnote ‘B’ and paragraph Nos. 13
and 14 of the judgment in Arjun Lakare (supra), and submitted that the
deemed continuation of tenancy would not apply to tenancy of Trust,
keeping in view Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act. Thereafter, he took me
through note B in the written submissions and submitted that the order
dated 14th August 1965 has become final to the extent of Laxman and
Tukaram, and that the Respondents never challenged the said order.
Accordingly, he has pointed out the order passed by the Tribunal at page
Nos. 95 and 112, and submitted that clauses 1 and 3 of the order are
contrary. Accordingly, he urged that the petition be allowed.
46. In view of the framing of the moot question by this Court, as
well as having heard Mr. Dhorde, the learned Senior counsel for the
Petitioners, as well as Ms. Talekar and Mr. Kulkarni at length.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 31 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
47. The following question arises for determination: –
i) Whether the Petitioner-Trust is entitled to claim
exemption in view of Section 88 B (2) of the Tenancy Act, or
whether the Respondents are entitled to purchase the writ
properties in view of the provisions of the said Act ?
ii) Whether any interference is required in the judgment
and order dated 16th August 2013, passed by the learned
Member, MRT, Aurangabad ?
iii) What order ?
48. After a marathon hearing of the learned counsel for the parties
and having gone through the material on record, at the outset, it appears
that the property in question originally belonged to Gyanu Tukaram Karle.
On 1st June 1908, he was a minor. One of his paternal aunts was
Nagammabai Adiwar. As per the wish and will of the father of Gyanu,
through his guardian Nagammabai, the property in question was gifted in
favour of Chinu Limbaji Samal and six others as mentioned above, for
utilisation of the said land for charitable purposes, i.e. the income received
from the said property was to be used for charitable purposes of Hindu
temples. Accordingly, the said Gyanu executed a Gift Deed in favour of the
pachas, and possession of the property in question was alleged to have been
handed over to them.
49. On 22nd November 1945, one panch/member of the committee,
namely Chinnu Limbaji Kamathi, died. The panch committee thereafter
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 32 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
included Ramanna Jalanna Lolap as a member. Accordingly, SDO passed the
order on 23rd October, 1945. Based on the said order, mutation entry No.
414 was taken in the revenue record on 8th January, 1946.
50. On 14th April, 1952, four panch members out of seven
members, i.e. 1) Rajanna Malanna Bhoir, 2) Balkrishna Shankar Lolap, 3)
Laxman Yellapa Chittar and 4) Baburao Sayanna Munner applied to the
Assistant Charity Commissioner, Pune, requesting him to register the Public
Trust, namely Telgu Munnurwar Dnyanganga Trust. In the said application,
the intention to form a Trust to utilise the income received from the
property in question for the welfare of the Temples was disclosed. They have
also provided a detailed description of the document as a Gift Deed dated 1 st
June, 1905, and the reasons for forming the Trust stated therein. In column
No. 7 of the said form, the description of S. No. 88 to the extent of 15 Acre
15 G and S. No. 89 to the extent of 28 Acre of the village Kurund is
mentioned. The said form itself indicates that the panchas in whose favour
the property in question was gifted applied to the Assistant Charity
Commissioner to register a public charitable Trust in accordance with the
Trust Act to accomplish the purpose mentioned in the Gift Deed and to
ensure the smooth administration of the income received from the property
in question.
51. On the said application, on 12th May, 1953, the Assistant
Charity Commissioner passed the following order.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 33 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
“The Trust is ordered to be registered. …. Carry out of the …….. formality.”
52. Based on the said order, the Trust’s name was registered with
the office of the Bombay Public Trust, Pune. Accordingly, in the said index,
in column No. 2, the name of the Trust is mentioned as ” Telgu Munnurwar
Dnyanganga Trust”. In column No. 3, the names of the Trustees have been
recorded as 1) Mallanna Krishnaji Barmellu, 2) Rajanna Mallanna Baid, 3)
Balkrishna Shankar Lolap, 4) Laxman Yallappa Chittar and 5) Babu Sayanna
Muttar/Munner were recorded in Sch. I of the P.T.R. Register as Trustees. In
column No. 4, the procedure for the election of the Trust is specified as ‘ by
the people of the samaj .’ In column No. 5, the purpose for which the Trust
was formed is mentioned as ” the income from the lands is to be applied to
any Hindu temple”. In column No. 6, the description of the document why
the Trust was registered is given, and in columns Nos. 10 to 15, the details
of the lands are given. In column No. 27, details of documents based on
which the Trust has obtained ownership rights, and who is in possession of
the property, are provided, i.e., by a registered Gift Deed dated 1 st June,
1905, the Trust obtained ownership rights in the lands, and same were in
possession of the panchas/Trustees from 7th April, 1952, as mentioned. Said
entry was taken in Schedule I of the PTR Register on 12th May, 1953.
53. It further emerges that in the year 1965, the Additional
Tahsildar and ALT, Parner, initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 34 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
Tenancy Act, wherein Laxman and Tukaram were shown as tenants, and
Ramanna Jallanna and Mallanna were shown as Landlords of the writ
properties. It is pertinent to note that Ramanna was not shown as a Trustee
of the Trust, nor was the Trust made a party to the said proceedings.
54. During the said proceedings, two questions were framed by the
learned Additional Tahsildar –
(i) Whether the tenant to whom the individual notice has been
issued is the lawful tenant entitled to the right of purchase? –
Answer : ‘Yes’, the tenancy is supported by entry in the other rights
column of the 7/12 extract of the lands in question. The said entry
denotes from the years 1953-54 to 1963-64. So also, the Tenants
admit the tenancy.
(ii) Whether the tenants are willing to purchase the lands?
Answer: ‘No’, the tenants have refused to purchase the lands.
55. Having considered the above, the learned Additional Tahsildar,
Parner, passed the following order.
The tenants are unwilling to purchase the suit lands, and I
therefore declare the purchase as ineffective under Section
32/G/(3) of the Tenancy Act. The proceedings under Section 32G
should be dropped, and the proceedings under Section 32/P should be
started. The parties and the village officers should be informed
accordingly in form No. 26.
Parner
14-08-1965 (M.A. Khan)
Additional Tahsildar and ALT, Parner.
56. It is worth noting that Laxman and Tukaram have not stated
how they came into possession of the land in question or how the Trust
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 35 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
created the tenancy in their favour. Similarly, they have not made the Trust a
party to the proceeding but shown Ramanna and Mallanna as the landlords.
In fact, they were not the landlords. The filing of proceedings against a third
person is itself untenable. Apart from that, the Additional Tahasildar had not
discussed about which documents were produced by Laxman and Tukaram
before him to claim that they had acquired the tenancy right in the lands in
question. Nothing has been discussed about the same. It is to be noted that
Laxman is one of the Trustees of the Trust as per Schedule I. Therefore, even
assuming his name was recorded in the other rights column, it cannot be
said that he has tenancy rights based on those entries. But on the basis of
the entries in Schedule I of the PTR register, his name might have been
recorded in the other rights column of the property in question.
57. Besides, by the order dated 14th August, 1965, the Additional
Tahsildar dropped the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act and started
the proceedings under Section 32P of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the
question of Laxman and Tukaram’s claim to tenancy rights over the lands in
question raises doubts.
58. It is pertinent to note that in the order dated 31 st December,
1992, the Tahsildar, Parner (page 73B in the second para) categorically
observed that Ramanna Kamathi, who was shown as landlord of the lands,
died on 14th December, 1962. The said fact itself indicates that the
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 36 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
proceedings were filed against the dead person, and an order was passed
against the dead person, Ramanna. Therefore, the said order is non-est and
vitiates in its entirety. It is worth noting that Laxman and Tukaram had not
challenged the said order at any point in time.
59. It is apparent that in the year 1975, Gyanoba, brother of
Laxman and Tukaram, filed Tenancy Appeal No. 130 of 1975 against the
order of Additional Tahsildar, Parner, on 14 th August, 1965, under Section
32G of the Tenancy Act. It is to be noted that Gyanoba was not a party to
the proceedings before the learned Additional Tahsildar, Parner, who passed
the order dated 14th August, 1965. Therefore, the question of challenging
the said order by him does not arise after a period of 10 years. It cannot be
overlooked that Laxman and Tukaram, who were the parties to the said
order, had not challenged the said order nor preferred any proceedings
against the said order. However, their brother, Gyanoba, had preferred
Tenancy Appeal No. 130 of 1975 against the said order.
60. In fact, he was not a party. Therefore, the question of his filing
an appeal does not arise. It is pertinent to note that he has not filed any
application for condonation of delay while filing the appeal. Therefore, on
the grounds of limitation as well as locus, the said appeal was not tenable in
the eyes of the law. However, the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer
did not consider these material facts and the settled position of law and has
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 37 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
erred in entertaining the appeal and remanding the matter to the Courts
below for a fresh hearing. It is to be noted that the learned Special Land
Acquisition Officer neither set aside the order dated 14 th August, 1965, nor
allowed the appeal, but by cryptic and unreasoned order remanded the
matter to the Court below for giving an opportunity to the appellant therein
to put his case. The said order was unreasoned and perverse to the
proposition of law and therefore cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
61. Apart from this, in ground No. 3 of the Appeal Memo in Appeal
No. 130/75, although Gyanoba alleged that he has been in possession of the
writ lands since 1953, when Yellapa died. However, in the 1975 Appeal, his
age was stated as 32 years. That means in 1953, he was approximately 10
years old. This itself indicates that he was a minor, and it cannot be said
that, being 10 years old, he was cultivating the writ lands, or he was in
possession of the same. That’s why he might not have been the party to the
proceedings. Assuming that he was in possession of the writ lands, he had
not preferred the Appeal within the prescribed period of limitation.
62. After passing of the order dated 8 th July, 1977 in Tenancy
Appeal No. 130 of 1975 Gyanoba, Laxman and Tukaram appeared before
the Additional Tahsildar, Parner as the applicants and one Ramanna Jallanna
Kamathi was shown as the Respondent (as deceased died on 14 th December,
1962) to the proceeding under Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, which was
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 38 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
commenced before the Additional Tahsildar, Parner.
63. By filing said Application, Laxman and his brothers pretended
to claim their rights against Ramanna Jallanna Kamathi, denoting him as
the owner of the lands/landlords. The said fact itself indicates that the
proceedings were shown to have been commenced against a dead person or
one who had no rights in the writ lands as an owner. Therefore, the question
of opposition by any person does not arise. In fact, they have to claim their
rights against the Trust as the Trust is the owner of the property in question.
But they did not make the Trust a party to the proceeding; instead, they
made the deceased Ramanna the Respondent/landlord. Therefore, passing
the order on 15th April, 1978, in the said proceeding is non-est and null.
Consequently, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
64. Thereafter, Gyanoba preferred the Tenancy Appeal No. 4 of
1979 against the order dated 15 th April, 1978, passed by the Additional
Tahsildar, Parner, for fixing the price of the lands in question on the ground
that the Tahsildar had erred in fixing the purchase price, wherein he made
Laxman and Tukaram as Respondents. The Assistant Collector, without
considering the material on record, passed a cryptic and unreasoned order
on 16th February, 1987, thereby allowing the appeal in part and remanding
the matter to the Tahsildar to determine the purchase price in light of the
observations made therein.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 39 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
65. Pursuant to the order dated 16th February, 1987, passed in
Tenancy Appeal No. 4 of 1979, Gyanoba Yellappa Chittar, Laxman Yellappa
Chittar and Yellappa Tukaram Chittar appeared before the Tahsildar in
tenancy proceedings under Section 32G in Tenancy Appeal No. 4 of 1979. In
the said proceeding, they have, for the first time, made the Petitioner Trust a
party. The Tahsildar, by a judgment dated 31st December, 1992, ordered
that Gyanoba, Laxman, and Yellappa had purchased the tenancy lands of
the Petitioner- Trust under the Tenancy Act; accordingly, directed them to
deposit the amount of Rs. 10,095.87/- before the Tenancy Court, subject to
the condition laid down in Section 43 of the Tenancy Act.
66. Aggrieved by the order dated 15 th April, 1978 and 31st
December, 1992, in Tenancy Appeal No. 4 of 1979, and tenancy proceedings
under Section 32G/Karandi/33 have been preferred in Tenancy Appeal No.
2 of 1995 before the Assistant Collector and SDO, Parner. The SDO,
Ahmednagar, vide judgment and order dated 30 th March 1996, allowed the
appeal, quashed and set aside the order dated 31 st December, 1992, and
remanded the matter to the Courts below for an inquiry afresh.
67. Being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30 th
March, 1996, the Petitioner Trust has preferred Revision Application No. 1
of 1998 before MRT, who allowed the Revision Application and the orders
passed by the SDO in Tenancy Appeal Nos. 2 of 1995 and 3 of 1995 were
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 40 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
quashed and set aside. Also, the order dated 28th November, 2000, passed by
the Tahsildar was set aside. Laxman and others have challenged the said
order in Writ Petition No. 7229 of 2004, wherein this Court, by order dated
25th April, 2008, quashed and set aside the order dated 28 th November,
2000, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
68. On remand, the learned Member, Tribunal, dismissed the
Revision Application filed by the Trust and confirmed the order dated 31 st
December, 1992, passed by the Tahsildar. The Tribunal also quashed the
order dated 30th March, 1996. I have perused the said impugned order. The
learned Member, Tribunal, despite observing that the Additional Tahsildar
passed the order against a dead person, has erred in holding that the
tenants are entitled to purchase the Trust property.
69. The learned Member of the Tribunal in paragraph 9 though has
observed that the Trust is the owner of the property, however, has erred in
recording the reasons that the Trust had not obtained exemption certificate
under Section 88 B (2) of the Tenancy Act that the Trust has not utilized the
whole income of the Trust for the religious purpose and the writ lands were
in possession of the tenants. The Trust has not produced any evidence to
show that the income was spent for a religious purpose. Therefore, the
Tahsildar has not accepted the plea of the Petitioner Trust but has held that
Laxman and his brothers are the tenants of the lands in question and has
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 41 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
determined the purchase price. He further observed that the order passed by
the Tahsildar is just and proper. In fact, the said order appears contrary to
the settled provisions of law and the facts on record; it prima facie appears
that Laxman, along with his brother Tukaram and Gyanoba, had initiated
proceedings against the deceased, rather than the Trust. They had not
disclosed the correct facts before the authorities obtained the order.
Therefore, the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law. Thus, a
finding recorded by the learned Member of Tribunal that the Trust has not
obtained the exemption certificate under Section 88B (2) of the Tenancy Act
was passed without application of mind.
70. In fact, Laxman and his brothers had not produced any
documents on record before the Tribunal or the Authorities to demonstrate
that, by virtue of any document, they have the tenancy rights in the writ
lands. On the contrary, the revenue records indicate that the Trust owns the
writ lands. Therefore, the filing of the application by Laxman and his
brothers without making the Trust a party leads to the drawing of an
adverse inference against them. As such, the order dated 16 th August 2013,
passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal, cannot be sustained in the
eyes of the law.
71. During the course of the argument, some queries were put to
Ms. Talekar, learned counsel for the respondent, regarding the documents
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 42 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
on which the respondent relies to demonstrate that they were the protected
tenants of the writ properties before the tiller’s date. If any revenue
documents are available with them, ask them to produce them. Pursuant to
the said query on 07th November 2025, the Respondents produced certified
copies of the 7/12 extract and the mutation entry, along with an affidavit of
Respondent No.1-A-b – Dinesh Suresh Koli. The Respondents have produced
the 7/12 extract of Survey Nos. 88 and 89 for the year 1931-32 till 1939-40,
and also produced the mutation entry no. 438 on record and canvassed that,
as per the said mutation entry, Yelappa, who is the ancestor of the
Respondents, was declared a protected tenant of Survey Nos. 88 and 89
under Section 3(A)(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Therefore, she argued
that the respondent’s ancestor is declared as a protected tenant before the
tiller’s date, i.e. 01st April 1957, and therefore, provisions of the Trust Act do
not apply to the tenants, who are in possession of the lands.
72. Perusal of 7, 7-A and 12 extracts of Survey No.89 indicates that
in the year 1937-38, the names of Yellappa Sayanna and Narsing Shivanna
were recorded in the tenancy and rent column (7-A) as possessor on behalf
of the panchas. Similarly, for the year 1938-39, the entry denotes that
Yellappa Sayanna executed the lease/rent agreement in favour of Jalanna
Ramanna Chittar. Their names were recorded in the tenancy and rent
column of S. No. 88. Likewise, the remark made in the 7-A column of
Survey No.89 is identical to the remark made in the 7, 7-A and 12 extracts
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 43 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
of Survey No. 88. A Plain reading of the mutation entry no. 438 of the
village Kurund shows that on 27th June 1947, Yellapa Sayanna was declared
as a protected tenant under Section 3(A)(2) of the Tenancy Act. The said
entry in respect of Survey Nos. 88 and 89 were sanctioned on 16 th March
1948. However, the subsequent entry indicates that, under the lease/rent
agreement, Yellappa Sayanna created rights in favour of Jalanna Ramanna
Chittar.
73. In response to the above, the Petitioners have also filed an
affidavit stating that the documents produced by the Respondents were
never produced in the proceedings before the authorities or the Tribunal.
Therefore, the same cannot be considered in this writ petition. Accordingly,
learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents produced
on record cannot be taken into consideration, as they were not part of the
proceedings before the authorities and the Tribunal.
74. It is worth noting that neither the Tribunal nor the authorities
have dealt with or discussed the 7/12 extract in respect of Survey Nos. 88
and 89 from the year 1931 to 1938-39 or mutation entry No. 438. Neither
the Authorities nor the Tribunal have considered those documents. In fact, it
was incumbent upon the authorities and the Tribunal to deal with those
documents. The Respondents have not produced the documents from 1940
onwards before the Court to demonstrate that, as of the tiller’s date, they
were in possession of the writ properties as tenants.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 44 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
75. Needless to clarify that, in the above background, I have not
dealt with the issue of fraud in determining the controversy between the
parties. Consequently, I find no substance in the arguments advanced by the
learned Advocate for the respective parties in that regard, and the said point
is kept open.
76. A plain reading of Sec.32-G of the Tenancy Act indicates that it
is a deeming provision, and, by a statutory mandate, vests title in that land
being cultivated by a tenant, in the tenant, as on 01 st April 1957. On account
of the deeming provision of Section 32G of the Tenancy Act, the vesting is
complete on 01st April 1957, and the provisions of tenancy apply for the
determination of the purchase price and grant of certificate under Section
32-M of the Tenancy Act are consequential to such vesting. The divesting of
title in the land cultivated by the tenant would only arise, when and if the
Agricultural Lands Tribunal passes an order in that regard, of the tenant not
having completed requirement of determination of purchase price or tenant
having surrendered the land or in view of other provisions of the Tenancy
Act which provides for it, in case they are held to have been complied with.
77. Having considered the above discussion and the provisions of
law, it appears that despite remand of the matter earlier, the learned
Tribunal, failed to deal with the short question that arises in the present case
as to whether the petitioner is entitled to obtain the exemption certificate
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 45 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
under Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act or whether the Respondents are
entitled to purchase the writ property as alleged in its proper perspective
and the same remained unaddressed and unanswered. It also appears that
the Respondents claim that, in 1938-39, the competent Authority declared
their ancestor as a protected tenant. On the other hand, the Petitioner claims
that the Trust was registered under the Trust Act on 12 th May, 1953, i.e.
before the tiller’s date. Therefore, they are entitled to obtain an Exemption
Certificate under Section 88B (2) of the Tenancy Act. The learned Tribunal,
as well as the authorities, have neither considered the relevant documents
nor dealt with them or the relevant provisions in their proper perspective
and have erred in holding that the Trust has not obtained the Exemption
Certificate from the competent Authority under Section 88-B (2) of the
Tenancy Act, and therefore, the order passed by the Tahsildar is just and
proper, and, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer is contrary to the
provisions of the Tenancy Act. In light of the above background, I do not
find substance to go into the controversy that arose between the parties in
the Writ Jurisdiction in the absence of the relevant material on record and
its appreciation in accordance with law. Consequently, question No. 1 raised
in the petition is rendered redundant.
78. It is apparent from the record that the Additional Tahsildar, by
order dated 14th August, 1965, held that Laxman and Tukaram, sons of
Yellappa, were unwilling to purchase the writ properties, and therefore,
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 46 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
declared that the purchase was ineffective under Section 32G (3) of the
Tenancy Act and proceedings under Section 32G were dropped, and
proceedings under Section 32P were initiated. However, neither Laxman nor
Tukaram had challenged the said order until 1975. In the year 1975,
Gyanoba, claiming to be a legal heir of Yellappa, filed an Appeal No.
130/1975 against the order dated 14 th August, 1965, passed by the
Additional Tahsildar before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is to be noted
that Gyanoba or the Respondents have not produced any document before
the Court to demonstrate that Gyanoba was in possession of the writ
properties in the year 1975 or prior to that to show that, based on the said
documents, he had the right in the writ properties to challenge the order
dated 14th August, 1965. M. E. No. 77 indicates that Yellapa died on
04.04.1953, leaving behind six sons, including Tukaram and Laxman. At the
relevant time, Gyanoba was a minor. However, none of the parties has
produced the documents before the authorities, Tribunal or the Court to
demonstrate that Gyanoba was in possession of the writ properties in 1975
or earlier. The order dated 14th August, 1965, passed by the learned
Additional Tahsildar, does not reflect that he had scrutinised the relevant
revenue records before passing the order. However, without considering the
record and in the absence of a filing of an application for condonation of
delay, the Special Land Acquisition Officer allowed the appeal and
remanded the matter to the Court below. Moreover, the said order appears
to be cryptic and unreasoned.
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 47 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
79. Thus, with this background, the impugned order as well as the
orders passed by the authorities cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law.
Therefore, in my opinion, the orders impugned are liable to be quashed and
set aside by remanding the matter to the Tribunal for reconsideration afresh,
in view of the observations made hereinabove. Accordingly, interference is
warranted in the impugned order under the writ jurisdiction. In view of the
above discussion, in my opinion, the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondent on the point of scope and powers of the
Superintendent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are hardly of
any assistance in support of her submissions. Similarly, in the wake of the
above-detailed deliberation, it is not required at this stage to deal with the
law laid down in the other judgments relied upon by the parties; the same
may be considered at an appropriate stage.
80. As a result, the Writ petition is partly allowed . The impugned
order dated 16th August, 2013, passed by the Tribunal, and orders dated
14th August, 1965, 15th April, 1978, 31st December, 1992, passed by the
Additional Tahsildar and Tahsildar, respectively, are hereby quashed and set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.
81. Needless to clarify that the Tribunal shall consider the
observations made as above and determine whether ancestors of the
Respondents were declared as Protected tenants in 1938 or who were in
possession of the writ properties at the time of registration of the Trust on
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 48 of 49
WP.8038-2013.doc
12th May, 1953, as well as on the tiller’s date 01 st April, 1957. Similarly, it
shall determine whether the Petitioner-Trust is entitled to claim an
exemption certificate u/sec. 88B(2) of the Tenancy Act, or whether the
Respondents are entitled to purchase the writ lands/Property and thereafter
pass an appropriate order. For a long time, the matter has been pending
between the parties; accordingly, it would be appropriate to direct the
Tribunal to decide the matter expeditiously and ensure that, in any case, it is
decided within 120 days of receipt of this order.
82. The Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No order
as to costs.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
83. At this stage, the learned Advocate Ms. Pradnya Talekar for the
Respondents submitted that the Respondents desire to challenge this order
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, so the same is to be kept in abeyance for
eight weeks, to which learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhorde for the Petitioner
has strongly objected.
84. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my view, it would be appropriate to keep this order in abeyance for a period
of eight weeks from today, as it would not cause prejudice to the parties.
Accordingly, the order is kept in abeyance for eight weeks.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)
Shrikant Malani /Vishal Parekar Page 49 of 49
