LALITA RAMESH LASE Vs JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA .
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,AMITAVA ROY
Case number: SLP(C) No.-010706-010706 / 2014
Diary number: 32590 / 2013
Advocates: SUNIL KUMAR VERMA Vs
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