Balkrishna Ganpat Gaikwad vs Smt Kumidani Eknath Joshi And Anr

CNR No : HCBM010264931999


WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
Date:
2026.11.05
14:11:36
+0530
HUSENBASHA
RAHAMAN
NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 852 OF 2000
Balkrishna Ganpat Gaikwad )
Since deceased through his heirs )
and Representative )
1. Vasant Balkrishana Gaikwad, )
2. Yashwant Balkrishna Gaikwad )
3. Ashok Balkrishna Gaikwad )
4. Suresh Balkrishna Gaikwad )
5. Anusaya Balkrishna Gaikwad )
6. Suhsila Manohar Balghare )
7. Satyabhama Narayan Patole )
since deceased through her legal )
heirs & Representatives )
7A. Rajendra Narayan Patole )
since deceased through his legal heirs)
7A(i) Anita Rajendra Patole )
7A(ii)Abhishek Rajendra Patole )
7(iii) Aniket Rajendra Patole )
7B. Sangita Kailas Gadve )
7C. Sujata Rohidas Jadhav )
7D. Savita Amit Chaskar )
8. Suman Gulab Wadekar ) ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Kumudani Eknath Joshi )
2. Sunita Gajanan Potale )
since deceased through legal heirs )
2A] Manisha Dattatraya Kale )
2B] Mangesh Gajanan Potale )
3. Arjun Balkrushana Gaikwad ) ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 849 OF 2000
Balkrishna Ganpat Gaikwad )
Since deceased through his heirs )

Husen 1
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
and Representative )
1. Vasant Balkrishana Gaikwad, )
2. Yashwant Balkrishna Gaikwad )
3. Ashok Balkrishna Gaikwad )
4. Suresh Balkrishna Gaikwad )
5. Anusaya Balkrishna Gaikwad )
6. Suhsila Manohar Balghare )
7. Satyabhama Narayan Patole )
since deceased through her legal )
heirs & Representatives )
7A. Rajendra Narayan Patole )
since deceased through his legal heirs)
7A(i) Anita Rajendra Patole )
7A(ii)Abhishek Rajendra Patole )
7(iii) Aniket Rajendra Patole )
7B. Sangita Kailas Gadve )
7C. Sujata Rohidas Jadhav )
7D. Savita Amit Chaskar )
8. Suman Gulab Wadekar ) ...Petitioners
Versus
1. Kumudani Eknath Joshi )
2. Arjun Balkrushana Gaikwad ) ...Respondents

Mr. Shailendra S. Kanetkar a/w Mr. Pranay Kothari for the Petitioners
in both petitions.
Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w Mr. Vedant Bende for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
th
DATE : 5 NOVEMBER, 2026
JUDGMENT :
1. Above petitions are filed challenging common judgment and
order dated 29.10.1999 passed by Designated Member, Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Pune (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MRT-P-X-5/95 (B-
185/95) and MRT-P-X-6/95 (B-186/95). By the said common

Husen 2
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
impugned order, revisions filed by landlord under section 76 of
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (‘the said Act’, for
short) against common tenant are allowed and orders of the lower
authorities viz. Sub Divisional Officer, Junnar, Sub Division, Khed
(Pune) (‘SDO’ for short) and Tahsildar / Agricultural Land Tribunal
Khed (Pune), (‘ALT’, for short) are set aside. In effect, the applications
filed by common Respondent/Agriculture tenant for fixing purchase
price, are rejected.
2. Subject matter property of Writ Petition No. 849 of 2000 is
Survey No. 81/2, which is subsequently converted to Gat No. 448
situated at Village Vadgaon, Patole, Taluka Khed, District Pune.
Subject matter property of Writ Petition No. 852 of 2000 is Survey
No. 35/4B which is converted into Gat No. 1007 situated at same
village. In both the cases, original Petitioner Balkrishna Ganpat
Gaikwad claimed to be tenant of the respective lands who had
applied for fixing purchase price under section 32G of the said Act.
Mr. Eknath Joshi was the original landlord.
3. The case of the Petitioner in short is as under.
3.1. That his name was recorded as tenant by Mutation Entry No.
2373 in June 1953. That he was cultivating the subject matter
property on the Tiller’s day i.e. 01.04.1957. That in March 1958, the
landlord partitioned the properties amongst family members leading
to Survey No. 81 being subdivided into Survey Nos. 81/1 and 81/2
and division of Survey No. 35/4 into Survey Nos. 35/4A and 35/4B.
That by Mutation Entry No. 2911 the partition was recorded in 1959.

Husen 3
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
That while giving effect to the partition, the Petitioner’s name was
not shown as tenant ( kul ) in respect of Survey No. 81/2 and Survey
No.35/4B.
3.2. That Petitioner filed 32G proceedings and got the purchase
price fixed. However, due to his illiteracy, he was under the
impression that he has got purchase price fixed in respect of entire
land i.e. Survey No. 81 and Survey No. 35/4; however, the
proceedings took place and purchase price was fixed only in respect
of half portions i.e. Survey No. 81/1 and 35/4A. That sometime in
1972, the consolidation scheme was implemented in the village and
Survey No. 81/2 was given Gat No. 448 and Survey No. 35/4B was
given Gat No. 1007.
3.3. The Petitioner realized that only half land is sold to him by
fixing purchase price and he therefore approached Tahsildar by
making fresh application under Section 32G of the said Act in respect
of Survey No. 35/4B-Gat No. 1007 in March 1986 and in respect of
Survey No. 81/2-Gat No. 448 in 1991.
3.4. That the concerned Tahsildar/ALT fixed purchase price of
Survey No. 35/4B-Gat No. 1007 on 26.03.1987. The
Respondent/landlord filed appeal, which was partly allowed by
concerned SDO on 25.01.1991 thereby remanding the matter back
for fresh inquiry.
3.5. On 30.03.1994 the concerned Tahsildar/ALT after fresh inquiry,
post remand, held that the Petitioner is tenant whose name was
subsequently removed while effecting partition. Purchase price of

Husen 4
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
Survey No.35/4B-Gat No.1007 was fixed. Similarly, the concerned
Tahsildar / ALT fixed purchase price for Survey No. 81/2-Gat No. 448
on 17.10.1994.
3.6. Both these orders were challenged by the Respondent/landlord
by filing TNC Appeal No. 38 of 1994 and TNC Appeal No. 27 of 1994
under Section 74 of the said Act, before concerned SDO. On
26.07.1995, both these appeals were dismissed confirming the orders
of the Tahsildar/ALT.
3.7. Against these orders the Respondent/ landlord filed the
aforesaid revisions under Section 76 of the said Act before the
Tribunal, in which impugned orders are passed as explained above.
4. It is in these circumstances that the present petitions were
filed. The Petitions are admitted on 17.08.2000. No interim relief is
granted in favour of the Petitioner/Tenant. During pendency of the
petitions, the legal heirs of parties were brought on record.
SUBMISSIONS
5. Learned counsel Mr. Kanetakar appearing for the
Petitioner/Tenant submitted that there is no limitation provided for
proceedings under Section 32G of the said Act and therefore, the
aspect of delay considered by the Tribunal is perverse. He relied upon
the judgment of L.J. Kriplani since deceased by his legal heirs Vs.
Manik Aditwar Patil & Ors. 2000(4) Bom.C.R. 366 in support of this
submission about limitation. He submitted that written agreement is
not required for the case of agricultural tenancy and there was

Husen 5
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
sufficient material in the form of revenue record, especially Mutation
Entry No. 2373 to indicate landlord-tenant relationship between
parties. He submitted that the angle of ‘maintaining relationship with
the landlord’ as noted by the Tribunal is perverse, as there is no such
requirement under law. He submitted that the mutation entry
showing tenancy rights are not challenged. He submitted that the
Tribunal with limited jurisdiction, has committed serious illegality by
interfering in the concurrent findings by the concerned
Tahsildar/ALT and SDO. He relied on Bhimrao Hanmant Patil since
deceased by his L.Rs. Ramrao Bhimrao Patil and Ors. Vs. Naganath
Santoba Bubane and Anr. 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 232 and Maruti Bala, Raut
Vs. Dashrath Babu Wathare and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 2051 in support of
his case. He further submitted that the Tribunal could not have acted
as a Court of first instance or as an appellate Court while dealing
with the evidence.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Limaye learned counsel for the
Respondent/Landlord submitted that the subject matter property is
recorded as 'grassland' ( charau-pad ) which cannot be considered as
agricultural activity and this aspect was directed to be considered in
remand order. Inviting the Court’s attention to the evidence of the
tenant, he submitted that the tenant has given various admissions
about showing complete ignorance about the landlord and not paying
any rent for the last 35 to 40 years. He submitted that if this evidence
is minutely seen, it clearly indicates that at least since 1952, the
tenant has not paid rent and therefore he cannot be considered as
tenant on Tiller’s day (01.04.1957). He submitted that when the

Husen 6
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
tenant himself has admitted about not paying rent, contrary mutation
entry should not have been considered by the authorities. He further
submitted that the rent receipts relied upon by the Petitioner/ Tenant
are not in the name of Respondent/Landlord (Joshi) but the receipts
are standing in the name of some Mr. Dixit; therefore the
Respondent/Landlord has no concern with those rent receipts. He
submitted that the Tribunal definitely had power to correct perversity
which power has been exercised and therefore, no interference is
required in limited writ jurisdiction. He relied on the judgment of
Rahimatulla Rahiman Sarguru Vs. Bapu Hari Mane and Anr. AIR
1979 SC 1326 in support of his case that in appropriate cases the
Tribunal has power to interfere with the impugned order. He also
relied upon Nathubhai Gandabhai Desai Vs. State of Bombay 1954
DGLS(Bom) 16 and Pune Panjarpole Trust Vs. Baban Gabaji Saste &
Ors. 2007(6) Bom.C.R. 505, in support of his case that ‘'grassland'’
cannot be considered as agricultural land and therefore, the
Petitioner cannot be considered as agricultural tenant.
7. Mr. Kanetkar then submitted in the rejoinder that the
Respondent/Landlord has not raised the ground of 'grassland' before
the lower Courts.
REASONS AND CONCLUSION
8. I have considered the submissions carefully and perused the
record.
9. At the outset, it is necessary to note that there is no merit in
the submission of the Petitioner that the ground of subject matter

Husen 7
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
property being 'grassland' is not raised before the lower authorities.
Bare perusal of order passed by concerned Tahsildar/ALT dated
30.03.1994 indicates that by making clear reference to the order of
remand dated 25.01.1991 in Tenancy Appeal Case No.TNC/A/7/87,
ALT has mentioned that the landlord has pointed out that subject
matter property Survey No. 35/4B is shown as 'grassland'. Further
contention of the landlord that rent receipt is not produced is also
recorded by Tahsildar/ALT. In fact, the Tahsildar has discussed this
aspect of subject matter property being claimed as 'grassland'. In that
view of the matter, whether subject matter property was 'grassland' or
not has been a point of dispute since beginning and therefore can not
be ignored.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlord has fairly
accepted that there is no limitation for filing an application under
Section 32G of the said Act, as explained in the case of L.J. Kriplani
(Supra). However, he is right in submitting that the conduct of the
Petitioner in not taking any action for a very long time from 1961 to
1986 in the case of Survey No. 35/4B and from 1961 to 1991 in the
case of Survey No. 81/2 for filing fresh application under Section 32G
on a self-serving and self-suiting convenient ground that ‘tenant was
under impression that the entire land has been sold to him instead of
only half’ must be considered. This aspect requires serious attention
in my considered view.
11. There is nothing on record which is pointed out to the Court as
to why the Petitioner/Tenant waited for such a long time of 25 to 30
years to start fresh proceedings under 32G in respect of the

Husen 8
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
remaining half portion of both the survey numbers. Going by the
Petitioner’s case, even after consolidation proceedings took place in
the village and the concerned survey numbers were converted into
gat numbers, his name did not appear as tenant. Under the
consolidation proceedings, the law requires issuance of notice and
recording of statements which obviously took place before the lands
were converted from survey numbers to gat numbers. Therefore, the
very case of the Petitioner/Tenant that he was under wrong
impression being illiterate is unbelievable. Tenant obviously knew
what he had applied for under 32G of the said Act, which has been
granted to him. It is not in dispute that the tenant has applied and
got purchase price fixed in respect of Survey Nos. 81/1 and 35/4A.
12. It is not in dispute that the tenant has given oral evidence in
the proceedings before the concerned Tahsildar/ALT. It is also not
disputed that the tenant has admitted that after the death of original
Landlord Mr. Eknath Joshi, he has not paid any rent to the legal heirs
for last 35 to 40 years. This evidence is recorded in March 1987 and
therefore taking best case for Tenant, the admission would clearly
mean that the tenant has not paid any rent to the landlord at least
from 1952 onwards. The original Tenant in his own application under
32G proceedings filed in the year 1986 in respect of Gat No.1007 has
admitted/stated that original Landlord Eknath Joshi expired in 1954-
55. If that be so, on Tiller’s day (01.04.1957) he could not have been
Tenant and can not be considered as ‘deemed purchaser’. The
Tribunal has considered various admissions given by the tenant and
has also considered that the rent receipts produced on

Husen 9
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
record do not mention gat numbers and the rent is shown to have
been received by one Mr. Dixit, who is not at all the
Respondent/Landlord (Mr. Joshi).
13. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not believed the case of
the Petitioner about being agricultural Tenant of the subject matter
property. It is not in dispute that remaining half portions of both the
original survey numbers viz. Survey No. 81/1 and 35/4A have been
received by the Petitioner under 32G proceedings for which purchase
price was fixed and he has become owner to that extent. In this
context, the inaction on the part of the Petitioner for a long time in
taking steps to file present 32G proceedings claiming to be tenant of
remaining portions of lands also must be seen and is accordingly seen
by the Tribunal.
14. Lastly, as noted earlier, the subject matter property being
'grassland' ( charau-pad ) has been a point of dispute between parties.
In this respect, Division Bench of this Court, way back in 1954, in
Nathubhai Gandabhai Desai (Supra), in paragraph Nos. 10 and 11
has held that the activity of cutting grass or putting up fence or
keeping watch to protect the grass is not an agricultural
activity/operation, either within the extended meaning of agriculture
given under said Act or within its natural meaning. This view has
been thereafter followed by learned single judge of this Court in the
case of Pune Panjarpole Trust (Supra) in respect of lands given for
grazing cattle and to cut grass.
15. The word charau-pad means grazing land or 'grassland'. In that

Husen 10
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48

WP-852-2000(J) C2 .doc
view of the matter, the nature of the subject matter property
('grassland') coupled with admission of the tenant before concerned
authority that no rent is paid to the heirs of original landlord dating
prior to the Tiller’s day, must be considered and is accordingly
considered by the Tribunal.
16. In Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) 4 SCC 181,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
“15. xxxx The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does
not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the
evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is
based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact
or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be
supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on
facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The
jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to
set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of
fundamental principles of law or justice. xxxx.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Since the final finding in the impugned order is found justified,
there is no need to interfere. Therefore, considering the overall facts
and circumstances of the case, view taken in the impugned order is
the most probable view. This is not a fit case to interfere. Accordingly,
writ petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
18. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen 11
Uploaded on - 05/11/2026 Downloaded on - 05/11/2026 14:36:48
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)