Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1736 OF 2011 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2710 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6160 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6788 OF 2025 Manika s/o Ranba, Died through L.Rs. Smt. Parvatibai w/o Vitthalrao Sangle & ors. …Petitioners VERSUS Manohar s/o Mukunda & ors. …Respondents ….. Mr. Arvind S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners Mr. B. V. Virdhe, A.G.P. for State Mr. S. B. Ghatol Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 1(b) ….. CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 27th JULY, 2026 O R D E R : 1. The petitioners raise challenge to the judgment and order dated 15.10.2010 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad in Case No. 61/B/1984/P, reversing the findings of the Additional Tahsildar vis-a-vis the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, declaring the original petitioner to be a protected tenant. 2026:BHC-AUG:33215 Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 2 :: 2. The dispute in relation to agricultural land bearing Survey No. 73A, admeasuring 1H-72R, situated at village Dongar- Jawala, Tq. Gangakhed, District Parbhani. The respondents instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 243 of 1978 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Gangakhed, seeking recovery of possession alleging that the original petitioner (Manikrao/ Manika s/o Ranba) illegally dispossessed them during the agricultural year 1976-1977. 3. The petitioner defended the suit, claiming to be in lawful possession of the land as a tenant since 1955. The petitioner claimed that a 1/4th share belonging to the respondents’ brother (Narayan Mukunda) was leased to him. The petitioner further claimed that the respondents executed an agreement to sell the land for Rs. 2,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,200/- were paid, continuing his possession under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In view of the statutory bar on Civil Courts deciding tenancy claims, as such, the Civil Court framed issue of tenancy and referred the matter to the Tahsildar, Gangakhed. 4. The Additional Tahsildar, Sailu, by order dated 20.10.1981, declared the petitioner to be a lawful tenant based on oral evidence and revenue records. Same was endorsed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani, on 12.01.1984. Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 3 :: 5. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents preferred Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which allowed the revision and set aside the tenancy declaration on 15.10.2010. Raising an exception to the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal exceeded the revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating oral and documentary evidence. The Authorities below concurrently found that the petitioner was cultivating the land as a tenant since 1955. The entry in the Khasra Pahani Patrak of year 1955-1956 records the petitioner’s possession. The learned counsel further submits that, it is not open for Revisional Courts to disturb the concurrent findings of facts recorded by Authorities below unless those are contrary to the record. As such, prayed to allow the petition. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1(b) supported the order under challenge submitting that the Khasra Pahani Patrak entry for the year 1955-1956 independently does not conform to the procedure required to register a tenancy. No tenancy agreement or receipts of payment of rent were produced by the petitioner. The orders by the Tahsildar and Deputy Collector suffered from a fundamental error of law and warrants correction. Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 4 :: Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 8. The learned A.G.P. also supported the order under challenge and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. Upon considering the rival submissions of the litigating sides and perusing the material on record, the issue falls for consideration is that whether the Subordinate Tribunal acted within its bounds or committed a gross error of law. Since, it does not act as a regular court of appeal, the revisional jurisdiction of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is restricted. As such, it is not open to set aside concurrent findings of fact unless those findings are found to be perverse. Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act reads as under : “53A. Part performance.— Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immoveable property by writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract, and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that 2***, or, where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him shall Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 5 :: be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly provided by the terms of the contract: Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a transferee for consideration who has no notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof.” 10. Upon perusing the record, it indicates that the Additional Tahsildar and the Deputy Collector examined both the oral statements and the revenue record. The Khasra Pahani Patrak of 1955-1956 confirms that the petitioner's induction into the property was legal. The Tribunal committed irregularity by evaluating the Khasra Patrak and rendering finding, did not support the tenancy. Once a fact is established by public record and supported by oral testimonies, the Tribunal cannot substitute same as against fact-finding rendered by the authorities concurrently. 11. The existence of a subsequent agreement to sale does not efface the effect of established tenancy unless there is surrender of tenancy rights. The petitioner's status as a tenant remained intact. The Tribunal, therefore, exceeded the revisional jurisdiction while discarding the reasoned order of the Authorities below. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is unsustainable since it exceeds Writ Petition No.1736/2011 :: 6 :: the scope of its revisional jurisdiction while acting upon assumptions. 13. As such, the Tribunal erred in law by reversing the findings of fact recorded by Authorities below which validly established the petitioner's tenancy. Consequently, the order under challenge being unsustainable, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 15. The judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 15.10.2010 in Case No. 61/B/1984/P is quashed and set aside. 16. The orders of the Additional Tahsildar dated 20.10.1981 and the Deputy Collector dated 12.01.1984 are hereby restored. 17. No order as to costs. 18. Pending civil applications, also stand disposed of. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-