2-wp-7864-2019.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7864 OF 2019 Prabhu Bhausaheb Bhame (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Balayayya Shankar Swami (Deceased) Through Legal Heirs and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Sanjiv Sawant a/w Ruchita G. Kadam i/b Abhishek Deshmukh,for the Petitioners. Ms. Pratibha Shelake i/b Pandit Kasar, for the Respondents. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 24, 2026 P.C.: 1. By this Petition, the Petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 22 June 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in the Review Application, the order dated 6 February 2001 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in the Revision Application, and the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, in Tenancy Appeal No. 55 of 1981. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present Petition are as under: In the year 1977, the A.L.T., Purandar, initiated suo motu proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "the B.T. & A.L. Act"), in respect of Gat No. 496, admeasuring 4 Hectares 60 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2026.08.24 18:21:09 +0530 2-wp-7864-2019.doc Ares, situated at Mavadi, K.P. On 25 May 1981, the proceedings under Section 32-G were held. The Tillers' Day had earlier been postponed under Order No. Mowadi K.P. 212 dated 22 April 1960 passed by the then A.L.T., as the landlady was a widow on the Tillers' Day. The Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. was pleased to fix the purchase price of the subject land at Rs. 2,091.47. 3. On 29 July 1989, the Respondents preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 55 of 1981 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Purandar. After hearing both sides, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer was pleased to allow the Tenancy Appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Purandar. The matter was remanded to the Tahsildar and A.L.T., Purandar, for further enquiry and necessary action in accordance with law. 4. On 6 February 2001, challenging the order dated 29 July 1989, the Petitioners herein preferred a Revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, by its order dated 6 February 2001, dismissed the said Revision Application. Thereafter, the Petitioners preferred a Review Application seeking review of the order dated 6 February 2001. By a common order passed below the Pursis, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal recorded that the Petition stood withdrawn unconditionally and accordingly disposed of the same. The learned Tribunal further directed the trial Tribunal, namely, the A.L.T., Purandar, to take note of the remand directions. Hence, the present Petition. 2 2-wp-7864-2019.doc 5. Mr. Sawant, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Sub-Divisional Officer and thereafter the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, relying upon the legal position existing prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasant Ganpat Padave by Lrs. v. Anant Mahadev Sawant (Dead) through Lrs., (2019) 19 SCC 577, recorded a finding that it was the duty of the tenant to give intimation to the landlord about his willingness to purchase the land, as contemplated under Section 32F(1A) of the B.T. & A.L. Act. He submitted that, in view of the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasant Ganpat Padave (supra), the said finding can no longer be sustained. He placed reliance particularly upon paragraph 55 of the said judgment. He submitted that the tenant had expressed his willingness to purchase the land before the A.L.T. in the year 1960, in the presence of the landlady, and therefore there was sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 32F(1A) of the B.T. & A.L. Act. 6. Mr. Kasar, learned Advocate appearing for the Respondents, sought an adjournment. However, considering the orders passed by this Court earlier, particularly the order dated 17 August 2026, and the fact that an adjournment had already been granted to the Respondents, the request for adjournment is rejected. 7. Paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vasant Ganpat Padave (supra) reads as under: “55. The questions referred to us are now answered as follows: 55.1. The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase 3 2-wp-7864-2019.doc by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers' Day. 55.2. The successor-in-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. 55.3. The decision in Appa Narsappa³ stands overruled. The decision in Sudam Ganpar stands distinguished as stated in para 47 of the judgment. The decision in Tukaram Marutis, to the extent that it follows the law laid down in Appa Narsappa³, stands overruled.” 8. In view of the aforesaid position, the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, requiring the tenant to intimate the landlord about his willingness to purchase the land, would no longer be sustained, particularly when the landlord, in his cross-examination, has specifically admitted that after the death of the widow, no such intimation was given. Paragraph 55.2 of the judgment in Vasant Ganpat Padave (supra) holds that even the successor-in-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant regarding cessation of the interest of the widow, so as to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. 9. In view of the aforesaid, the finding recorded by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer is unsustainable. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revision Application No. 6 of 1995, confirming the judgment and order passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 55 of 1981, are quashed and set aside. The proceedings are remanded to the learned Sub- Divisional Officer, who shall decide Tenancy Appeal No. 55 of 1981 4 2-wp-7864-2019.doc on its own merits and in accordance with law. 10. The parties shall appear before the learned Sub-Divisional Officer on 7 September 2026. 11. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer shall decide the matter within a period of three months from the date of appearance of the parties. 12. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 13. The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 14. No order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 5