Mathurabai Kondu Patil Died Lrs Tarachand Kondu Patil And Others vs Ramabai Keshav Wani And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:17557
WP-1699-2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.1699 OF 2018
Mathurabai Kondu Patil (Died)
Through It's L.rs.
1. Tarachand Kondu Patil (Died),
Age: 65 years, Occu: Agriculturiest,
Through its L.R.s
1-a) Aaba Tarachand Patil,
Age:- 60 years, Occu;- Agriculturist,
1-b) Arun Tarachand Patil,
Age:- 52 years, Occu;- Agriculturist,
1-c) Sangitabai w/o Prabhakar Patil,
Age:- 49 years, Occu;- Agriculturist,
1-d) Meenabai w/o Gulab Patil,
Age:- 46 years, Occu;- Agriculturist … Petitioners
VERSUS
1. Ramabai Keshav Wani,
Age:- 81 years, Occu- Household,
R/o.- Pimprala, Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon.
2. Kaushalyabai Murlidhar Wani,
Age:-78, Occu: Houshold,
R/o:- Kadholi, Tq. Erandol, Dist. Jalgaon.
3. Sumanbai Murlidhar Wani,
Age:- 75, Occu- Houshold,
R/o. 99, Ganesh Colony, (Guru krup),
Tq. & Dist. Jalgon.
4. Kalawati Vasant Wani, (Died)
Age:- 81 Occu: Household,
R/o. 7, yogeshwar Nagar, Old Nashirabad Road,
Tq. & Dist. Jalgaon. … Respondents
1

WP-1699-2018.odt

…..
Mr. S. D. Kulkarni i/b Mr. Vijay V. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
…..
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 06.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the petition
finally with the consent of the parties at the stage of admission.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30.08.2002
passed by the Tahsildar, Jalgaon inTenancy Case No.03/2001, the
order dated 31.05.2005 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon
in Tenancy/Appeal/7/2002 and the order dated 11.01.2018 passed
by the Member (Administrative), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), in File No.35/B/2007/Jalgaon.
3. The facts of the present case are as follows :
[I] The petitioners are the legal heirs of the original protected
tenants, namely Kondu Patil and Barku Patil. The respondents are the
legal heirs of Chindhu Pandu Wani, the original landlord. The
petitioners, as heirs of the protected tenants, invoked Section 32-G of
the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short,
“the said Act”) for purchase of the land in question, contending that
they were in possession thereof on the Tillers’ Day. The said
application came to be rejected by the Tahsildar by order dated
30.08.2002. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioners preferred
Tenancy Appeal No. 07 of 2002, which was also rejected by the Sub-
2

WP-1699-2018.odt

Divisional Officer, Jalgaon by order dated 31.05.2005. Thereafter, the
petitioners preferred a revision under Section 76 of the said Act.
However, there was a delay of two months and thirteen days in filing
the revision. Though an application for condonation of delay was
filed, the Tribunal rejected the same on the ground of delay. Being
aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 1028 of 2007.
This Court, by order dated 18.03.2008, allowed the writ petition and
directed the Tribunal to decide Tenancy Revision No. 80 of 2005
within a period of six months from the date of the order. This Court
further directed the parties to maintain status quo as on 20.02.2007.
4. The learned counsel, Mr. Kulkarni, instructed by the learned
counsel Mr. Patil, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the father
and uncle of the petitioners were protected tenants, and after their
demise, the petitioners, being their legal heirs, have continued as
tenants and are in possession of the agricultural land admeasuring 4
H 16 R out of Gat No. 119, situated at Domgaon, Taluka and District
Jalgaon, since 01.08.1948. He further submits that the original
landlord, namely Chindu Pandu Wani, died on 26.05.1946. As per
Mutation Entry No. 517, his widows, Dwarkabai and Nababai, were
recorded, and as on 01.04.1957 (Tillers’ Day), the petitioners’ right of
deemed purchase stood postponed under Section 32-F of the said Act.
Accordingly, a mutation entry was effected on 21.09.1948, and the
proceedings under Section 32-G came to be dropped. He submits that
the first widow, Dwarkabai, died on 19.04.1981, and the second
widow, Nababai, died on 05.08.1994. It is further submitted that after
their deaths, no intimation thereof was given to the tenants, nor was
any application filed by the landlords’ heirs for resumption of the land
for personal cultivation. He therefore submits that the issue is no
3

WP-1699-2018.odt

longer res integra in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Vasant Ganpat Padave (D) by LRs. & Ors. vs. Anant
Mahadev Sawant (D) through LRs. & Ors., reported in 2020 (2) Bom.
C.R. 563, wherein it has been held that in the absence of intimation to
the tenant regarding cessation of the widow’s interest, so as to enable
the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the tenant is entitled to
have the purchase price fixed. He submits that in view of the settled
position of law, the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional
Officer, and the Tribunal are liable to be set aside, and the Tahsildar
deserves to be directed to fix the purchase price under Section 32-F of
the said Act.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel, Mr. Bhokarikar, appearing for
the respondents, supports the order passed by the Tribunal and
contends that the Tribunal has confirmed the concurrent findings of
fact recorded by the authorities below. He submits that, in such
circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. He further submits that possession of the subject
land has already been delivered to the respondents on 17.02.2017 by
following due process of law, and that the said action has not been
challenged by the petitioners. He further submits that Tenancy Case
No. 03 of 2001 was not filed within the prescribed period of
limitation. He submits that the original landlord had two wives,
namely Nababai and Dwarkabai, who were widows on the Tillers’ Day,
i.e. 01.04.1957, and therefore, the tenants’ right to purchase the land
stood postponed. He submits that, in the present case, Section 32-F of
the said Act is applicable. He submits that, as per Section 32-F(1)(a)
of the said Act, the tenants are required to exercise their right of
purchase within two years from the date of death of the landowner,
4

WP-1699-2018.odt

i.e. the landladies. He submits that, according to the petitioners’ own
case, Dwarkabai died about 15 to 20 years prior, and Nababai died in
or around the year 1992. He further submits that, in view of Section
32-F(1)(a) and Section 32-F(1A) of the said Act, the petitioners ought
to have exercised their right to purchase the land within two years
from the death of the last surviving landlady, i.e. Nababai. Thus, the
right ought to have been exercised, at the latest, by the year 1994. He
relied upon the following Judgments:
1. Tukaram Maroti Chavan Vs Maroti Narayan Chavan,
2009 AIR SCW 335 ;
2. Anna Bhau Magdum Vs Babasaheb Anandrao Desai,
AIR 1995 SC 2164 ;
3. Sita Ram Bhau Patil Vs Ramchandra Nago Patil, AIR
1977 SC 1712 ;
4. Maroti Bala Raut Vs Dasharath Babu Pathare, AIR
1974 SC 2051 ;
5. Balappa Chennappa Terdal Vs Siddhappa Vyankappa
Kaligudi, 2006 (6) AIR Bom R 233 (HC) ;
6. Rangarao Nivrutti Lad vs Vishnu Jyoti Thorbole,
2001 (1) Mah LJ 647 ;
7. Kashiram Mahipati Vs Khandu Tulshiram, 2001 (1)
Mah LJ 867 (HC) ;
8. Sangan Basappa Vs Vishvanath Shivlingappa 2003(2)
Mah LJ 587 ;
9. Kamalabai Rau Dhangar Vs Mahadeo Gopal, 2004(4)
Mah LJ 780 ;
10. Ranjit Shripatrao Holkar Vs Ananda Sakharam,
2004(4) Mah LJ 842;
5

WP-1699-2018.odt

11. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi Vs Vithoba Babaji Bhagat,
2007(3) Mah LJ 344;
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the orders passed by the Tahsildar, the SDO, and the
Tribunal, as well as the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.1028 of 2007, the contention raised by the respondents that they
had already taken possession of the land in the year 2007 needs to be
considered. It is useful to refer Section 32-F of the said Act, which
reads as under :
32F. Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor, etc.— (1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections,—
(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to
any mental or physical disability, the tenant shall have the right to
purchase such land under section 32 within one year from the expiry
of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the
tenancy under section 31 and for enabling the tenant to exercise the
right of purchase, the landlord shall send an intimation to the tenant
of the fact that he has attained majority, before the expiry of the
period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
under section 31:
Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a
joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least
one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in
this sub-section unless before the 31st day March 1958 the share of
such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and
bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of
such person in the land is separated, having regard to the area,
assessment, classification and value of the land, in the same
proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family
property, and not in a larger proportion.
(b) where the tenant is a minor, or a widow or a person subject to any
mental or physical disability or a serving member of the armed forces,
then subject to the provisions of clause (a), the right to purchase land
under section 32 may be exercised—
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he
attains majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of the widow within one year
6

WP-1699-2018.odt

from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which the mental or
physical disability of the tenant ceases to exist;
(iv) within one year from the date on which the tenant ceases
to be a serving member of the armed forces:
Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a
joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least
one member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in
this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of
such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and
bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is satisfied that the share of
such person in the land in separated, having regard to the area,
assessment, classification and value of the land, in the same
proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family
property, and not in a larger proportion.
(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under
sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord
and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified
in that sub-section:
Provided that, if a tenant holding land from a landlord (who
was a minor and has attained majority before the commencement of
the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969
(Mah. XLIX of 1969)) has not given intimation as required by this sub-
section but being in possession of the land on such commencement is
desirous of exercising the right conferred upon him under sub-section
(1), he may give such intimation within a period of two years from the
commencement of that Act.
(2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32E (both inclusive) and sections
32G to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be applicable, apply
to such purchase.”
Upon perusal of the above provision, it is clear that land owner
has to give intimation to the tenant regarding cessation of interest so
as to enable tenant to purchase the land.
7. In this regard, reference may be made to the order dated
18.03.2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1028 of 2007,
wherein the respondents herein contended that possession had been
taken, which was specifically denied by the petitioners. This Court
vide order dated 18.03.2008 directed the parties to maintain status
7

WP-1699-2018.odt

quo. More importantly, it is immaterial whether the respondents had
actually taken possession from the petitioners. The undisputed
position is that the original landowner, Chindhu Pandu Wani, had
expired, and on the tillers’ day, Nababai and Dwarkabai, being
widows, were the landladies. Consequently, the right of the tenants
(petitioners) to purchase the land stood postponed. It is also not in
dispute that the petitioners were protected tenants on the tillers’ day.
The petitioners have contended that no intimation regarding the
death of the landladies or the succession of heirs was given to them. It
is further their case that they continued to pay rent to one of the legal
heirs. In the absence of such intimation by the landowners/landladies,
the petitioners cannot be precluded from seeking fixation of the
purchase price of the land.
8. In fact, the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Vasant Ganpat Padave (Supra), while dealing with similar facts, has
held that the successor-in-interest of a widow is under an obligation
to give intimation to the tenant regarding the cessation of the widow’s
interest so as to enable the tenant to exercise the right of purchase.
The Apex Court has observed in Paragraph No. 50 of the said
Judgment as follows :
“50. The questions referred to us are now answered as follows:
(i) The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and
applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a tenant
of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental or physical
disability on Tillers' day.
(ii) 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.
8

WP-1699-2018.odt

(iii) The decision in Appa Narsappa (supra) stands overruled. The
decision in Sudam Ganpat (supra) stands distinguished as stated in
paragraph 47 of the judgment. The decision in Tukaram Maruti
(supra), to the extent that it follows the law laid down in Appa
Narsappa (supra), stands overruled.
We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of the
High Court dated 1st August, 2014. As a result, the tenant's
intimation of purchase of 2008 will now be taken on record by the
authorities under the Act, who may now proceed under the Act to
determine purchase price and its payment consequent upon which the
postponed right of the tenant in this case to own the land will then
come into being upon the statutory conditions being met. The appeals
are disposed of accordingly.”
9. In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the
Constitutional Bench, once it is held that such intimation was required
to be given, the tenants cannot be denied their right to seek fixation of
the purchase price of the land. Since the issue is squarely covered by
the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the writ petition
deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
[I] The Writ Petition is allowed.
[II] The order dated 30.08.2002 passed by the Tahsildar, Jalgaon in
Tenancy Case No.03/2001, the order dated 31.05.2005 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Jalgaon in
Tenancy/Appeal/7/2002 and the order dated 11.01.2018
passed by the Member (Administrative), Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Aurangabad, in File No.35/B/2007/Jalgaon are
quashed and set aside.
[III] Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
[IV] Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Sameer/March-2026
9