Page 1

1

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P. (CIVIL) NO. 10706 OF 2014

LALITA RAMESH LASE & ORS.           ....PETITIONERS

               VERSUS

JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA & ORS.     ….RESPONDENTS

WITH

SLP(C) No. 24080/2014 SLP(C) No. 22322/2015 SLP(C) No. 23092/2014 SLP(C) No. 28382/2014 SLP(C) No. 18491/2014 SLP(C) No. 594/2015 SLP(C) No. 28380/2014 SLP(C) No. 22327/2015 SLP(C) No. 22329/2015 SLP(C) No. 28367/2014 SLP(C) No. 28324/2014 SLP(C) No. 18495/2014 SLP(C) No. 18033/2015 SLP(C) No. 36132/2014 SLP(C) No. 22328/2015 S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 11227/2014 SLP(C) No. 28393/2014 SLP(C) No. 28363/2014 SLP(C) No. 21992/2015 SLP(C) No. 28417/2014 SLP(C) No. 632/2015

Page 2

2

SLP(C)  D. No. 10476/2015 SLP(C) No. 23099/2014 SLP(C) No. 28391/2014 SLP(C) No. 28396/2014 SLP(C) No. 22315/2015 SLP(C) No. 28316/2014 SLP(C) No. 18490/2014 SLP(C) No. 28381/2014 SLP(C) No. 22332/2015 SLP(C)  D. No. 22563/2015 SLP(C) No. 22326/2015 SLP(C) No. 18492/2014 SLP(C)  D. No. 22559/2015 SLP(C)  D No. 1206/2014

J U D G M E N T

AMITAVA ROY, J.  

1. Delay condoned.

2. The  procrastinated  dissension  in  these  Special  Leave

Petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has its

inception in the dogmatic claim  of  the petitioners of'  being

tenants in respect of   individual plots claimed to be in their

possession and utilized for cultivation, as envisaged under the

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural  Land Act,  1948 (for  short

hereinafter refer to as ‘the Act’).  The exercise launched by the

petitioners herein to achieve this elusive distinction is traceable

Page 3

3

to applications filed by them and others claiming to be equally

placed, under Section 70(B) of the Act in the office of Tehsildar,

Thane for such declaration.  After several ups and downs with

reversals  in  fortunes,  the  Maharashtra  Revenue  Tribunal

(hereinafter also referred to as “the Tribunal”)  interfered with

the  decision  of  the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Thane  Division,

Thane  and  remanded  the  matter  to  the  concerned  tenancy

authority for a fresh round of scrutiny on facts.  By the ruling

assailed in the present Special Leave Petition, the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay has set at naught this determination of

the Tribunal and has rejected the claim of the petitioners.   

3. Though at the first instance, 124 Special Leave Petitions

had  been  filed,  this  Court  by  order  dated  04.05.2016  has

dismissed  all  except  36  therefrom,  as  only  in  the  surviving

special leave petitions, the petitioners therein had ventured to

offer documents in support of their claim.  This was more so, as

by  earlier  orders  dated  11.07.2014  and  14.03.2016,  the

petitioners were required to produce documents to substantiate

their claim of tenancy under the Act as on the Tiller's Day i.e.

01.04.1957.   Be  that  as  it  may,  the  instant  scrutiny,  as  a

Page 4

4

corollary,  is  limited  to  the  aforementioned  36   special  leave

petitions.  

4. As  referred  to  hereinabove,  the  petitioners  and  others

claiming  themselves  to  be  tenants  in  respect  of  the  plots

involved did file individual applications under Section 70(B) of

the Act before the Tehsildar, Thane seeking declaration of their

status as such.  The Tehsildar acceded to the prayer made and

allowed  the  applications.  Being  aggrieved,  the

respondents-landlords questioned the tenability of this decision

before the Assistant Collector,  Thane by invoking the latter's

revisional  jurisdiction.   The  Revision  Petitions  filed  by  the

respondent/landlords  were  allowed  and  the  matters  were

remanded  to  the  Tehsildar,  Thane  for  a  fresh  adjudication.

Significantly  after  such  remand,  the  petitioners  and  other

tenants filed amendment applications modifying their averment

of being in cultivating possession of their plots for 20-22 years.

In  their  amended  pleading,  they  asserted  to  be  in  such

possession for last 40-45 years.  

Page 5

5

5. The  Tehsildar  vide  his  determination  made  in  the  year

2001  again  allowed  the  applications  of  the  petitioners  and

others holding them to be protected tenants in respect of the

plots involved.  In course of such adjudication, the Tehsilidar

made site inspections of the land and also noted the standing

paddy  cultivation  thereon.   This  revenue  authority  also

recorded  that  the  petitioners  had  been  cultivating  the  plots

prior to 01.04.1957.  Their status of protected tenants under

the Act was thus declared.

6. The respondents/landlords next took the challenge before

the  Sub-Divisional  Officer,  Thane  by  filing  equal  number  of

appeals, which were allowed between December, 2002 to 2005

observing that no sufficient evidence had been adduced by the

petitioners and other applicants in support of their status of

tenants.

7. The  petitioners  and  others,  in  their  relentless  pursuit

moved the Tribunal for invocation of its revisional jurisdiction.

The Tribunal, by a common order, set aside the orders passed

by  the  two  lower  forums  and  remanded  the  contest  to  the

Page 6

6

Tehsildar to decide the issues afresh by permitting the parties

to lead evidence.

8. The respondents-landlords  next  invoked  the  writ

jurisdiction of the High Court to  laciniate this adjudication of

the Tribunal and to reiterate by the verdict impeached herein,

the impugnment was upheld and the revision applications filed

by  the  petitioners  before  the  Tribunal  were  dismissed  in

entirety.   

9. As the text of the decision oppugned herein would reveal,

the High Court noticed amongst others, that the applications

filed were all in a cyclostyled form which did not adequately

contain  the  particulars  of  the  lands.   That  the  amendment

applications  did  not  contain  the  required  endorsements  to

indicate  the  dates  on  which  those  had  been  submitted  and

taken on record, was noted as well. It took noticed too, that by

such amendment applications, an attempt had been made to

enhance the duration of cultivating possession of the petitioner

from 20-22 years to 40-50 years.  It recorded the finding of the

Tribunal that except the 7/12 extracts/mutation entries for the

Page 7

7

year 1982-83 showing the names of 25 persons as cultivators

and  some  mutation  entries  in  the  names  of  the  legal

representatives  of  the  corresponding  original  applicants,  no

other document had been produced.  That all  the applicants

had not examined themselves was marked as well.  The High

Court recorded that on the basis of the materials available, the

Tribunal  had  disbelieved  the  contents  of  the  applications

submitted in the cyclostyled forms.  It noticed the observation

of  the  Tribunal  that  the  documents/records  sought  to  be

produced before it (Tribunal) had not been offered in the earlier

rounds of enquiry and that too without any explanation.  The

conclusion of the Tribunal that though there were documents

referring  to  agricultural  lands  with  survey  number  thereof

along with the particulars of the applicants as cultivators but

the  same were  not  relatable  to  the  disputed lands was also

taken in consideration.

10. The High Court thus, on a scrutiny of the available datas,

disapproved the direction of the Tribunal, in spite of its above

findings,  to  remand  the  matter  to  the  concerned  revenue

authorities for a fresh round of audit of the rival assertions by

Page 8

8

allowing the parties to adduce fresh evidence.  According to it,

if  notwithstanding  the  several  arduous  bauts  of  the  parties,

spanning over three decades, the factum of possession of the

petitioners  of  the  plots  involved  as  on  the  Tiller's  Day,  as

agriculturists,  could  not  be  demonstrated  by  valid  evidence,

there was no justification for the remand, as ordered by the

Tribunal.  The revision petitions filed by the petitioners were

therefore  dismissed  as  a  whole,  decisively  affirming  for  all

intents  and  purposes,  the  findings  of  the  first  appellate

authority i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, negating the claim

of the petitioners.

11.    Before this Court, in terms of the order dated 11.07.2014,

additional irreconcilable pleadings have been exchanged by the

parties  in  the  special  leave  petitions,  presently  under

consideration, so as to identify per se the plots involved by their

particulars in the revenue records with those claimed by the

petitioners.   

12.   Whereas, it has been assiduously urged on behalf of the

petitioners  that  the  High  Court,  without  adverting  to  the

Page 9

9

essential and important aspects addressed by the Tribunal and

the reasons cited by it had interfered with its order of remand

and that having regard to the cause of social justice, which the

petitioners seek in terms of Section 70B of the Act, the enquiry,

as directed,  ought to be permitted,  it  has been emphatically

urged  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  that  the  claims  of  the

petitioners  are  expressly  false,  frivolous  and  fictitious

warranting summary dismissal of the special leave petitions.  It

has  been  insisted  on  behalf  of  the  respondents  that  the

petitioners,  in  spite  of   several  opportunities  granted,  had

utterly  failed  to  produce  any  proof,  oral  or  documentary  to

establish their status of protected tenants under the Act and

therefore,  this  protracted controversy ought to be awarded a

final quietus for all times to come.  It has been maintained that

the original tenancy applications of the petitioners were on the

basis  of  gut  numbers,  whereas the 7/12 extracts/ mutation

entries presently produced by them, contain survey numbers

and that one does not correspond to the other. In course of the

arguments, our attention has been drawn to several instances

of  the  mis-match  between  the  gut  numbers  and  the  survey

Page 10

10

numbers,  provided by the  petitioners  in  respect  of  the  plots

claimed by them.

13.   Noticeably, in the chart appended by the petitioners to

the written arguments laid for our perusal, the above demurral

of the respondents is writ large on the face thereof.  There are

several  instances  in  the  chart  submitted  by  the  petitioners

exhibiting the inconsistencies pointed out by the respondents.

The admission of the petitioners amongst others is also that

wrong  gut  numbers  had  been  mentioned  in  the  initial

applications.   This  chart  of  the  petitioners  patently

demonstrates that though the original applications were made

on the basis of gut numbers, the 7/12 extracts and mutation

entries, as mentioned in their additional affidavit, do refer only

to survey numbers.  To reiterate, though the petitioners have

sought to relate the survey numbers with the gut numbers, it is

hyaline clear that those do not match in most of the cases with

the  particulars  referred  to  in  their  applications.   The

explanations  offered  by  the  petitioners  on  the  basis  of  their

possession of the plots involved, in spite of the above anomalies

involved  highly  disputed  and contentious  questions  of  facts.

Page 11

11

Having regard to the prolonged backdrop of the litigation and

the  several  rounds  of  enquiries  already  undertaken,  we  feel

disinclined in the overall  fact  situation,  to interfere  with the

well  considered decision of the High Court.   The petitioners,

according to us, have failed over the years, in spite of several

opportunities, to prove their claim of protected tenants under

the  Act,  by  producing  consistent  convincing  and  cogent

evidence in support thereof.   

14. Judged  in  the  totality  of  the  attendant  facts  and

circumstances,  we  are  of  the  unhesitant  view  that  the

impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  does  not  merit  any

interference.  The Special Leave Petitions are thus dismissed.

Cost easy.

 ….....…....................................J.   (DIPAK MISRA)

                  …...........................................J.    (AMITAVA ROY)

NEW DELHI; DECEMBER 16, 2016