12-WP11027-2026.DOC Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11027 OF 2026 Abdulbari Gulam Hussen Tungekar And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors …Respondents Mr. Pradeep Thorat, i/b Bhalchandra Shinde, for the Petitioners. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for the State. CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATED: 28th AUGUST, 2026 Order:- 1. Heard Mr. Pradeep Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order dated 23rd June, 2026 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai, (“MRT”) in Tenancy Revision Application No. TENANCY/REV/RAIGAD/L-08/2024, whereby the revision application preferred by the Petitioners against a judgment and order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No. 83/2022 came to be dismissed by affirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. The Petitioners preferred an application under Section 70b 1/5 SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Digitally signed by SANTOSH SUBHASH KULKARNI Date: 2026.09.03 21:39:56 +0530 12-WP11027-2026.DOC of the Act, 1948 before the ALT asserting, inter alia, that they were the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 258/2, admeasuring 60 Are, situated at Village Vindhane, Taluka Uran, District Raigad ("the subject land"). The name of Bhima Mahadev Hasha Gharat, the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent No. 4 was wrongly mutated to the record of rights of the suit land as a tenant thereof. The deceased Bhima never cultivated the suit land. Nor the deceased Bhima was cultivating the suit land on 1st April, 1957 on the Tillers' Day. 4. By an order dated 21st April, 2022, the ALT was persuaded to allow the application on the basis of a spot inspection carried out by the Circle Officer on 6th March, 2020, which, inter alia, revealed that the purported tenant Bhimabai Gharat has passed away prior to 25 years. Her son, Krishna Gharat, was not cultivating the suit land, and one Gajanan Sakharam Gharat was in actual cultivation of the suit land. 5. The Tahsildar/ALT, Uran, declared that, the Respondent No. 4 was not the tenant in respect of the suit land and directed the deletion of the name of the Respondent No. 4 from the record of rights of the suit land. 6. The Respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Sub- Divisional Officer. By a judgment and order dated 7th November, 2/5 12-WP11027-2026.DOC 2023, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order passed by the ALT observing, inter alia, that Mutation Entry No. 157 recording the name of the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent No. 4 as the tenant in respect of the suit land was certified on 21st March, 1957. Thus, the predecessor-in-title of the Respondent No. 4 became a deemed purchaser of the suit land on the Tillers Day. The Petitioners failed to bring on record any material to show that the said mutation entry was set aside. Thus, the ALT was in error in declaring that the predecessor-in- title of the Respondent No. 4 was not a tenant in respect of the suit land. Moreover, the ALT had passed the order against a dead person without impleading her legal representatives. 7. In the revision application, the MRT found no reason to interfere with the order passed by SDO. The learned Member, MRT, reiterated that Mutation Entry No. 157, which was certified before the Tillers Day, was never challenged. Furthermore, the ALT had proceeded with the hearing of the application under Section 70b without impleading the legal heirs of the deceased tenant, though the said fact was brought on record of the ALT. 8. Mr. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, submitted that the learned Member, MRT, as well as the Sub- 3/5 12-WP11027-2026.DOC Divisional Officer, were in error in interfering with the order passed by the ALT. Emphasis was laid on a purported statement made by Krishna Gharat to the effect that his mother Bhimabai passed away prior to 25 years and they had not been in cultivation of the suit land since prior to 48 years. 9. It could not be, however, controverted that the proceedings were continued by the ALT without impleading the legal representatives of Bhimabai Gharat on record. 10. Even on the merits of the matter, from the perusal of the material on record, it becomes abundantly clear that the name of Mahadev Hasha Gharat was mutated to the record of rights of the suit land as a tenant thereof for the years 1954-1955 and 1955-1956. Mutation Entry No. 157, certified on 21st March, 1957, clearly records that the name of Bhima Mahadev Hasha Gharat was mutated to the suit land as an ordinary tenant. The record of rights of the suit land thus makes it clear that the predecessors-in-title of the Respondent No. 4 were in cultivation of the suit land since 1954, and on the Tillers Day, Bhima Mahadev Hasha Gharat was in cultivation of the suit land. Once this fact becomes explicitly clear, the statutory consequences envisaged by the provisions contained in Section 32 of the Act, 1948 follow automatically. The tenant who was in cultivation of 4/5 12-WP11027-2026.DOC the land on the Tillers Day becomes its deemed purchaser. A useful reference in this context can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi vs. State of Bombay1. 11. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the MRT as well as the Sub-Divisional Officer were well within their rights in interfering with a wholly untenable order passed by the ALT on the basis of site inspection carried out in the year 2020. 12. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 1 AIR 1959 SC 459. 5/5