wp 2338-2018.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2338 OF 2018 1. Ramdas S/o Khati Pidurkar, Aged about 54 years, occ. Cultivation 2. Bayabai Khati Pidurkar (dead) Aged about 75 years, Occ. Cultivation (deleted as per Court’s order dated 18.07.2023) Nos.1 & 2 R/o. Nokari, Tahsil Korpana, District Chandrapur 3. Kamlabai Mahadeo Thengane, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Cultivation, R/o Naigaon, Tah. Wani, District Yavatmal … PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The Member Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, Bench at Nagpur. 2. Sub Divisional Officer, Rajual, Tahsil Rajura, District Chandrapur 3. Tahsildar, Korpana, Tahsil Korpana, District Chandrapur 2026:BHC-NAG:12652 wp 2338-2018.odt 2 4. Talathi, Talathi Saza, Bakhardi, R/o. Post. Lakhmapur, Tahsil Korpana, District Chandrapur 5. Maroti s/o Ramchandra (dead) Parsutkar, aged about 67 years, Occ. Cultivation, 5-A. Jijabai Maroti Parsutkar Aged about 58 years, Occupation : Cultivator, R/o Pimpalgaon, Tah. Korapana, District- Chandrapur (added the R-5-A as per Court’s Order dated 03.12.2025) 6. Anandrao s/o Ramchandra Parsutkar, aged about 64 years, Occ. Cultivation, Nos.5 and 6 R/o. Post. Pimpalgaon, Tahsil Korpana, Distt. Chandrapur. … RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Shri Anil Giratkar, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.S. Autkar, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 Ms Kirti Satpute, Advocate for respondent No.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL , J. DATE D : 23.09.2026 JUDGMENT 1. Heard. wp 2338-2018.odt 3 2. In the present petition, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 16.03.2018 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revision Application No. HYD-TENC/CHA- 90/2015, whereby the learned Tribunal has held that the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was the tenant of the suit field, and thereby answered the issue in positive which was referred by the Civil Court. 3. In the present case, the undisputed facts of the present petition are as under: The petitioners are the owners of survey No.35/1 having area measuring 4.61 HR of Mouza Bibi, Taluka Korpana, District Chandrapur. 4. The present respondent Nos. 5 and 6 on 14.02.2003 entered into an agreement of sale of the suit property for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- with petitioners. As per the averments of agreement of sale, petitioners received Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining amount was agreed to be paid on wp 2338-2018.odt 4 or before 14.03.2003. It is also recorded that respondent Nos.5 and 6, are having possession over the land since long. 5. The petitioners, however, failed to execute the sale deed. Therefore, on 01.07.2003, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed the suit for specific performance of contract on the basis of agreement of sale dated 14.02.2003. The said suit was registered as RCS No.100 of 2003, pending before Civil Judge Junior Division, Rajura. 6. In the said suit, present petitioners have filed their written statements on 21.01.2004. In their written statements, particularly in paragraph No.10 of special pleading, it is submitted by the petitioners that, father of petitioners/defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3, namely, deceased Khati Pidurkar was the original owner of the suit land, and he has inducted the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, namely, deceased Ramchandra as a lessee. After the death of Ramchandra, the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 decided to start the cultivation of land wp 2338-2018.odt 5 jointly in partnership. It was decided that for such cultivation, the respondents will pay half share of product obtained from the suit field. The said partnership was run by them for 3 to 4 years. But later on, there was a dispute cropped up between them on the point of equal share on the crops received from the suit property. Out of that dispute, false case was filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 against them. According to them, they have never executed any agreement of sale with respondent Nos.5 and 6. 7. It is further pointed out that after filing of the written statements, respondent Nos.5 and 6 have amended the plaint and stated that they are the tenant of petitioner's father, and therefore, the issue of tenancy was raised in the petition. In view of this issue raised, learned Trial Court by its order dated 12.01.2011 referred the issue, “Do the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.5 and 6 prove that their father was tenant of suit property?” to the Tahsildar, as subject of deciding tenancy of agriculture land falls in his exclusive jurisdiction. wp 2338-2018.odt 6 8. The learned Tahsildar, after referring of the issue to him, has called Talathi report in the matter. After calling the Talathi report, he has recorded the finding that since last 50 to 60 years, the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, namely Shri Anandrao Ramchandra Parsutkar, was having the cultivation possession of the suit property. So also, the revenue record shows that the name of Ramchandra Sakharam Parsutkar is recorded as a tenant. Hence, it is held that the father of the respondent No.5 was the tenant of the suit property. But while recording this finding, he has exceeded his jurisdiction and also ordered that by depositing the amount of tenancy, also issue the ownership certificate of the suit field. 9. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 in light of order of Tahsildar deposited the amount of Rs.4511/-, and thereby Tahsildar, Korpana, has executed the ownership certificate in favour of them. The Sub-Registrar, Korpana, also issued ownership certificate on 13.04.2015. Not only this, after the issuance of ownership certificate, the revenue entries were also wp 2338-2018.odt 7 mutated in the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6. 10. This all exercise was done before expiry of a statutory period of appeal. The petitioners challenged the order of Tahsildar before Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajura. The learned Sub-Divisional Officer, by recording the finding that learned Tahsildar, by order dated 31.03.2015, has committed an error by passing the order only on the basis of long possession and on the basis of revenue entries of respondents. It is further held that Tahsildar has further exceeded his jurisdiction while deciding the reference and directed to issue the ownership certificate without expiry of the period of appeal. Accordingly, quashed and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. The learned Sub Divisional Officer has also recorded in his order that respondent Nos.5 and 6 failed to produce sufficient evidence on record to show that their father was the tenant of the suit property, and hence on that count also, quashed and set aside the order of Tahsildar. 11. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 against the order of Sub wp 2338-2018.odt 8 Divisional Officer approached before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, after perusal of the orders passed by Tahsildar as well as Sub Divisional Officer, has recorded the finding that as per the revenue record, the entry in the name of petitioners is recorded as owner, but it is nowhere recorded that they are in a cultivation possession. On the other hand, perusal of the revenue record shows that there is an entry in the name of Ramchandra Parsutkar as a tenant of the suit field. The said entries in the name of respondent Nos.5 and 6 are also not challenged by the original owner, namely Khati Rama Pidurkar during his life time. Hence, the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 seems to be in a continuous cultivation possession. Hence, by recording this finding that respondent No.5, Anandrao Ramchandra Parsutkar, being a tenant of the suit property, answered the issue and sent back the matter to the Civil Court for further consideration. In this background, the petitioners approached before this Court to challenge the impugned judgment of the Revenue Tribunal. wp 2338-2018.odt 9 12. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that the revenue authorities failed to consider the issue of tenancy in a legal manner. According to him, only on the basis of revenue entries, the tenancy cannot be decided. According to him, no material was placed on record by the respondents to establish the fact that they are deemed tenant or protected tenant as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. The respondents, however, pointed out that from the documents which were enclosed before the Civil Court and the findings recorded by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, it is crystal clear that learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated controversy involved in the matter. It is pointed out that from the agreement of sale dated 14.02.2003, wherein it is categorically mentioned that present respondent Nos.5 and 6 are in possession of land in question since long. So also, the petitioners in their written statements have specifically admitted that original owner, wp 2338-2018.odt 10 namely Khati Pidurkar, has inducted the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6, namely Ramchandra, as a lessee of the suit property. Therefore, according to the respondents, this fact is self- sufficient to hold that father of the respondents was the tenant of the suit field. 14. The respondents further pointed out that the original owner, namely Khati Pidurkar, has never challenged the tenancy of deceased Ramchandra during his lifetime. So also, it is stated that respondent Nos.5 and 6 being in possession of suit property, petitioners have entered into an agreement of sale. Hence, all these circumstances clearly establish the fact that father of the respondents was the tenant of the suit property. 15. It is the submission of the respondents that revenue entries, which are having a presumptive value, are required to be considered while deciding the issue whether the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was a tenant of the suit property or not. Accordingly, as the revenue authority has recorded the finding wp 2338-2018.odt 11 that since long, the possession over the suit field is of respondent Nos.5 and 6, this conclusion cannot be held illegal unless rebutted by the cogent evidence by the petitioners. 16. The respondents have then relied upon Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. According to the respondents, a person lawfully cultivating any land belonging to another person is defined as a deemed tenant. Therefore, relying upon Section 5 of the Act, 1950, it is the case of the respondents that father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was the deemed tenant of the suit property. 17. The petitioners on the other hand in support of their submission have relied upon the several judgments of this Court. It is pointed out that in the case of Vali and Others vs. Indumati, in Writ Petition 732 of 1990 decided on 16.04.2015 by Aurangabad Bench, whereby it is held that tenant’s claim for protected tenancy status must be substantiated with cogent evidence. Revenue entries without corroborative evidence are wp 2338-2018.odt 12 insufficient to establish tenancy rights. However, in present case, issue of protected tenancy is not involved. Here, issue referred is whether father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 was tenant or not. Hence, in my opinion considering the facts and circumstances of present case, this judgment is not relevant in the present matter. 18. Petitioner then relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Fulabai vs. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others, in Special Civil Suit No.1268 of 1967 decided on 25.09.1969, to state that a person in possession under a lease created by unauthorized person cannot claim lawful possession or the status of a deemed tenant. However, this proposition of law is not applicable in the matter because it is the own case of the petitioner that his father has inducted the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as a lessee of the suit property. 19. Petitioners further relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Shri Mohan Vithoba Pawar vs. Shri Shivaji Rajaram Mandke and others in Writ Petition No. wp 2338-2018.odt 13 1745 of 1997 decided on 28.11.2024, with the same proposition that burden of proof lies on the tenant to establish tenancy rights and substantiate entries in revenue records with cogent evidence. In the present case, this judgment would not be applicable in the present matter because the father of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was tenant as stated by the petitioners in his written statement. If the statement of the petitioners is accepted then it is clear that father of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was in a continuous possession of a suit property. His possession was authorized in the matter. In in light of this submission, if the revenue entries are looked into, it substantiate the submission of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Hence, this judgment which is relied by the petitioners is not applicable in the matter. 20. The petitioners have relied upon further judgments on the same issues which are delivered by this Court, but it is seen that same are not applicable in the present case because in present case, it is admitted fact that father of the petitioner has inducted the father of respondent Nos.5 and 6 as a lessee of the wp 2338-2018.odt 14 suit property, therefore, all those judgments are not relevant in the present matter. 21. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 has relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in Babu Hari Patil and anr. vs. Rama Amanda Jadhav (deceased) and ors. 2005 (1) ALL MR 329. The Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that even there being an entry in the tenancy column on a rent note or a rent receipt in favour of a person, who is in lawful possession, must be declared as “deemed tenant” under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act irrespective of the fact whether or not the authority of such persons is derived directly from the owner of land. All that is required is “lawful” cultivation by a person other than the member of the family of the landlord subject to other conditions specified under the provisions of law. 22. In the present matter, in my considered opinion, the judgment of Coordinate Bench in the Babu Hari Patil (supra) is relevant and applicable in the facts and circumstances of the wp 2338-2018.odt 15 present case. It is admitted fact that respondents are not the family members of the petitioners. It is also admitted by the petitioners in their written statements that father of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 was inducted as a lessee of the land. The revenue entries supports the submission of the respondents that they are in cultivation possession since long. The copy of agreement of sale also states that respondents are in possession of the suit property since long. All these factors if collectively considered, only conclusion can be drawn that respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the deemed tenants as per Section 5 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. 23. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the present case. I am satisfied that learned Revenue Tribunal has rightly considered the controversy in the matter and hence, the present petition which is devoid of merit stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (PRAVIN S. PATIL J.) R.S. Sahare Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 24/09/2026 11:02:26