TMV’S LOKMANYA TILAK

LAW COLLEGE

KHARGHAR

SUBJECT:
MOOT COURT MEMORIAL

CIVIL CASE PETITIONER

SUBMITTED BY:

Name : AMIT. Y. DIWALE.

Class : LLB 3rd Year.

Roll No : 16.

1
PRN No : 21217600984.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPEALATE JURISDICTION
Civil Writ Petition No. of 2019

Case filed seeking writ under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, 1950

Gulabhushan Balekhan Chittewan

Jamadar(Deceased)Through LRs.………………….…PETITIONERS

-VERSUS-

1) State of Maharashtra Through

the Department of Revenue,
Mantralaya, Mumbai
2) Sub-Divisional Officer, Karveer,
Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur
3) Tahsildar, Karveer, Tal Karveer,
Dist Kolhapur
4) Shri Dattu Babu Bharvase

Through LRs………………….………………RESPONDENTS

2
 WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONER

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRIPTIONS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION OF PARTIES...................Pg.2
2. LIST OF ABBREVATIONS...........................Pg.4
3. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES...........................Pg.5
4. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...............Pg.6
5. STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................Pg.7
6. ISSUES TO BE RAISED................................Pg.12
7. ARGUEMENTS ADVANCED......................Pg.13 to 15
8. PRAYER.........................................................Pg.16
9. VERIFICATION………….............................Pg.17

3
 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABBREVIATIONS EXPANSION
§ Section

§§ Sections

¶ Paragraph

SDO Sub-Divisional Officer

AIR All India Reporter

AO Assessing Officer

Bom CR Bombay Cases Reporter

MRT Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal

ME Mutation Entry

DLT Delhi Law Times

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honourable
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
MRTD
Decisions
MRR Maharashtra Revenue Reporter

p. Page No.

r.w.s. Read with Section

SCC Supreme Court Cases

SCR Supreme Court Reporter

u/s Under Section

w.e.f With Effect From

4
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASE LAWS

 Janardan Dagdu Khomane and Another Vs. Eknath Bhiku Yadav & Ors.

 Ankush Hiraman Magar And Ors. vs Thakubai Maruti Tupe And Ors.

 Dina Onkar Patil and Ors vs Dulba Rajaram Patil and Ors.

 Kishor Waman Darne and Ors vs Tarabai Waman Gharat and Ors.

 Shrikrishna Subhana Horambale and Ors vs Shripad Jivaji Apte and Ors.

BOOKS REFERRED

 Jhabvala
 Pithawalla

INTERNET SOURCES
 www.indiankanoon.com

 www.scc.com

 www.google.com

 www.lawctopus.com

 Wikipedia, the free online Encyclopedia

 www.manupatra.com

STATUTES REFFERED
 Constitution of India
5
  Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land act,1949

 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

THE HON‟BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

EXERCISES JURISDICTION TO HEAR AND ADJUDICATE
OVER THE MATTER UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950.

THE PETITIONER HUMBLY SUBMITS TO JURISDICTION OF

THE HON’BLE COURT WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE
HIM. HOWEVER, THE RESPONDENT RESERVES THE RIGHT
TO CHALLENGE THE SAME.

6
 STATEMENT OF FACTS
1) Petitioners state that the agricultural land (Hereinafter referred
to as “the said land”). The said land is originally owned by
predecessor in the title of petitioner i.e Balekhan Jamadar. The
Respondent no. 4 before Respondent no 3
bearing.No.Tenancy/32G/08/2017 u/s 32G of Bombay Tenancy
And Agricultural Land Act 1948 (the said Act).

2) It is contended by the applicant therein that, the said land was

originally predecessor in title of the petitioner Mr.Balekhan
Jamadar. The said land was held by predecessor in the title of
the applicant as a tenant in his lifetime.

3) Since 1950-51 predecessor in title of the Applicant/Respondent

No 4 Mr Dattu Bharwaskar were cultivating the said land in the
capacity as a tenant. It is further case of the applicants that on
20.06.1950 the said Dattu Bharwaskar had accepted the said
land on such a terms and conditions as a tenant and for payment
of rent.

7
4) Since then the applicants are in possession and cultivation of the
said land as a tenant. So also since applicant are in possession
and cultivation of the said land since 1949, the said land is given
Under Writing on tenancy basis by the predecessor in the title of
the respondent.

5) Therefore the predecessor in the title the said applicant was in

cultivation and possession of the said land as on tiller’s day i.e.
01.04.1957. Thus they become deemed purchaser under the
provision of 32G of the said Act. Till today the said land in is
the possession of the applicant as tenant.

6) The name of the applicants are recorded in the Crop Inspection

column of 7/12 extract of the said land, since 1949 which would
indicate the crops which are/were being taken by the applicant
from year to year.

7) Since no sale deed was executed by the predecessor in the title

of petitioner herein in favour of the predecessor in title of the
applicant/respondent no 4, the name of the petitioners are
reflecting in the ownership column of the record of rights.

8
8) In spite of the original tenant was willing to pay the purchase
price, the respondent failed and neglected to execute the sale
deed in there favour. Thus they were avoiding the same.

9) Therefore the respondent no 4 had filed application u/s 32G of

the said act before the respondent no 3 and requested that the
Certificate u/s 32G of the said act be issued in favour of the
respondent and sale deed be executed.

10) Petitioner states that initially the proceeding’s under

sec.32g of the said act was started however the same was
postponed till the land is re-granted as per M.E. No 1360 dtd.
25.6.1974. It was denied that the respondent no. 4 or his
predecessor in title was tenant in the said land at any point of
time.

11) The said respondents are no way concerned with the said
land. During the period of 1949 to 01.04.1957 the said
respondents were not lawful tenant in the said land. Therefore
no value should be attached to the orders passed in 1981, 1990
and 1991.

12) Since 1949 till this date the name of the said respondents
and/or their predecessor title was not recorded in the 7/12
9
 extracts of the said land. Thus they cannot claim benefit of the
provision of the said act as tenant and thus they are not deemed
purchaser.

13) The request of said respondents was under section 32G of

the said act, however in present case the provisions of the said
act would not apply. There is no M. E. effected in the name of
the said respondent in the 7/12 extract of the said land as
protected tenant.

14) So also on 02.02.1996 it is decided that the provision of

sec 32 to 32R not applicable to the said land. The said land are
sugarcane cultivable. The same is reflected by M.E. No. 1263.
Therefore the petitioner prayed for the dismissal of the
application filed by the applicants under section 32G of the said
act.

15) The petitioner states that, after going through the, record
and arguments advanced by the advocates on behalf of there
respective parties, the respondent no 3 by his order dtd on
22.06.2018 rejected the application under section 32G of the
said act filed by the respondent no 4.

10
16) Petitioners state that, thereafter being aggrieved and
dissatisfied by the aforesaid order dtd 22.06.2018 passed by
respondent no 3 in tenancy 32G/08/2017, the respondent no 4
filed appeal under section 74 of BT and AL act challenging the
same to the respondent no 2 on various grounds. However after
going through the record and proceedings the respondent no 2
also was pleased to dismiss the appeal bearing tenancy appeal
no 197/2018 by order dtd 22.06.2018.

17) Petitioner states that, thereafter being aggrieved and

dissatisfied by aforesaid judgement and order dtd 20.12.2018
passed by respondent no 2 in tenancy appeal no 197/2018, the
respondent no 4 filed revision application bearing KP/10/2019
before the Hon’ble MRT under sec. 76 on various grounds of
objection more particularly mentioned in the revision
application.

18) Petitioner state that after going through the rival

contention of the parties and arguments advanced on their behalf
the Ld. Members of MRT is pleased to allow the said revision
application and remanded the matter back to the respondent no 3
for hearing on application of respondent no 4 afresh.

11
 19) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid
judgement and order dtd 02.11.2019 passed by Ld. Member of
MRT is pleased to allow the said revision application bearing no
KP/10/2019 whereby remanded the matter back to the
respondent no 3 for hearing on the application respondent no 4
afresh, the petitioner beg to approach to this Hon’ble court on
various grounds.

ISSUES RAISED

I. Whether the impugned order dtd 02.11.2019 passed

by Ld Member of MRT is wrong, illegal, and bad in
lawin view of the concurrent findings of fact by
lower authorities ?

II. Whether the Writ Petition under Art 227 is

maintainable or not ? Explain.

III. Whether the respondent no 4 was tenant in the said

land as on tiller’s day i.e. 01.04.1957 and what is his
rights under the relevant provisions of Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act ?

12
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH :

1) Whether the impugned order dtd 02.11.2019 passed by

Ld.Member of MRT is wrong, illegal, and bad in law in view
of the concurrent findings of fact by lower authorities?

It is most humbly submitted by petitioner before this

Honourable Court that, the impugned order and judgement
passed by MRT thereby allowing the said revision application
and remanding the said matter back to the respondent no 3 for
hearing on application of respondent no 4 afresh is illegal and
contrary to the provisions of law. The MRT is not empowered to
remand back the matter for reconsideration and for freshly going
to the merits of the case. There is no specific provision
empowering the MRT to remand back the matter. Even
otherwise as per Maharashtra land revenue code under Section
13
 318 the tribunal shall have powers of civil court and the MRT
shall follow the same procedure which a court follows in
deciding appeal from the decree or order of and original court
under CPC.

2) Whether the Writ Petition under Art 227 is maintainable or

not ? Explain.

It is most humbly submitted by petitioner before this

Honourable Court that, the writ petition against the order and
judgement of MRT is maintainable since there is no efficacious
remedy available for challenging the said order.
Article 227 in The Constitution Of India 1949:
227. Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court
(1) Every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts
and tribunals throughout the territories interrelation to which it
exercises jurisdiction
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing
provisions, the High Court may
(a) call for returns from such courts;
(b) make and issue general rules and prescribe forms for
regulating the practice and proceedings of such courts; and

14
 (c) prescribe forms in which books, entries and accounts shall be
kept by the officers of any such courts.

3) Whether the respondent no 4 was tenant in the said land as

on tiller’s day i.e. 01.04.1957 and what is his rights under the
relevant provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act ?

It is most humbly submitted by petitioner before this

Honourable Court that, Petitioner states that the respondent no.
4 or his predecessor in title was tenant in the said land at any
point of time.
The said respondents are no way concerned with the said land.
During the period of 1949 to 01.04.1957 the said respondents
were not lawful tenant in the said land. Therefore no value
should be attached to the orders passed in 1981, 1990 and 1991.
Since 1949 till this date the name of the said respondents and/or
their predecessor title was not recorded in the 7/12 extracts of
the said land. Thus they cannot claim benefit of the provision of
the said act as tenant and thus they are not deemed purchaser.
The request of said respondents was under section 32G of the
said act, however in present case the provisions of the said act
would not apply. There is no M. E. effected in the name of the
said respondent in the 7/12 extract of the said land as protected
tenant.

15
 So also on 02.02.1996 it is decided that the provision of sec 32
to 32R not applicable to the said land. The said land are
sugarcane cultivable. The same is reflected by M.E. No. 1263.
Thus the petitioner states that the respondent does not have any
rights under the relevant provisions of Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act.

PRAYER

In the light of the facts stated, issues raised,

authorities cited and pleadings advanced, it is most
respectfully prayed before this honourable court that it
may be graciously pleased to:

 The writ petition made under Article 227 of the

Indian constitution to be allowed.

 The said order passed by MRT may be set aside

with costs.

16
  And may pass any other order that it deems fit in
the interest of justice and good conscience. All of
which is respectfully submitted.

PLACE:
S/d.......................................

DATE: COUNSEL OF
PETITIONER

VERIFICATION

Verified that the contents of the petition are true to best of

my knowledge and are true to best of my belief as
information received by me through my counsel.

Last Para is the prayer before this Hon’ble court.

Verified at _____________ on _____________

17
PETITIONER.

18