Non-heir testamentary legatee lacks locus to continue tenancy under Sections 40 and 43.

The dispute concerned agricultural land bearing Survey No. 8/2, admeasuring 2 hectares 93 ares, situated at Village Shaha, Taluka Indapur, District Pune.

Narayan Bandu Shendge, the original tenant, had earlier initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Tenancy Act”). Those proceedings were closed on 30 November 1960 after the landlord obtained a certificate under Section 88C.

A subsequent Section 32G application filed in 1993 was rejected by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (“ALT”) on 16 March 1994 and by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10 June 1994.

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”) initially allowed the tenant’s revision on 7 February 1996 and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry.

The landlord thereafter filed a review, which the MRT allowed on 19 September 1997, restoring the orders of the ALT and SDO. The tenant challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

During pendency of the writ petition, the original tenant died on 27 July 2013. Nitin Mahadeo Palkhe was brought on record as his legal representative on the basis of a registered Will by a one-line order of the Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 8 January 2014.

Whether the MRT had jurisdiction to review its earlier remand order pursuant to the liberty granted by the High Court, and whether the review was filed within the permissible time?

Whether the MRT was justified in reviewing its earlier order on the basis of the Tahsildar’s letter concerning the landlord’s alleged proceedings under Section 33B and the subsistence of the Section 88C exemption certificate?

Whether Nitin Mahadeo Palkhe, claiming through the deceased tenant under a Will, was entitled to continue the writ petition and claim tenancy rights in view of Sections 40 and 43 of the Tenancy Act?

Whether the writ petition had abated upon the death of the original tenant due to non-substitution of his statutory heirs?

The Court applied Sections 32G and 32–32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, governing the statutory purchase of agricultural land by tenants; Section 33B, concerning a landlord’s application for possession; and Section 88C, under which certain landlords obtain exemption from the statutory purchase provisions.

Section 40 provides for the continuation of tenancy by the tenant’s legally recognised heirs, while Section 43 restricts the transfer or assignment of land purchased or retained under the Tenancy Act without prior sanction of the Collector.

Applying Sections 8 and 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court held that surviving Class-I heirs exclude more remote heirs such as a grandson.

Relying on the three-Judge Supreme Court decision in Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia v. State of Gujarat, 2021 (1) ALL MR 716 (SC), the Court held that “assignment” under Section 43 includes a testamentary disposition, including a Will, particularly where the devisee may not satisfy the statutory requirements of personal cultivation and eligibility.

The Court also proceeded under Order XXII Rules 5 and 10-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to examine the representative capacity and locus of the person seeking to continue proceedings after the tenant’s death.

The Court first held that the MRT’s exercise of review jurisdiction was authorised by the High Court’s earlier order, which expressly permitted review upon production of the Section 33B application or relevant evidence, provided review was sought within three weeks.

The review was therefore not jurisdictionally defective or time-barred, since it was filed within three weeks of the High Court’s order.

On the merits, the MRT relied on the Tahsildar’s letter dated 31 October 1996 stating that the landlord had applied for possession in 1960, although the original records had subsequently been destroyed, and also relied on the unchallenged Section 88C certificate.

The High Court found that these materials provided a sufficient basis for the MRT to review its earlier order and restore the ALT and SDO decisions.

The landlord’s unrebutted statement established that the deceased tenant had left eight daughters, who were Class-I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

Palkhe therefore could not claim tenancy merely as an alleged grandson. His alternative claim under the Will also failed because, under Vinodchandra Sakarlal Kapadia, a testamentary transfer constitutes an “assignment” under Section 43 and requires prior Collector’s sanction.

Since Palkhe was neither a statutory heir under Section 40 nor an eligible transferee under Section 43, he lacked competence to continue the writ petition. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned MRT order could not be challenged at his instance.

The Court declined to determine the complete list of legal heirs or formally decide the abatement prayer for want of necessary material, but held that Palkhe lacked locus to prosecute the matter.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, the MRT’s order dated 19 September 1997 was confirmed, and the Rule was discharged.

Pending civil applications were disposed of without an order as to costs.

At Palkhe’s request, operation of the judgment was stayed for six weeks because the matter had remained under interim protection for a prolonged period.