Pralhad Haribhau Bankar Throu Poa And ORS v. Shyamrao Moreshwar Kulkarni Since Decd By His Legal Heirs And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.17695 OF 2024 Pralhad Haribhau Bankar and ors.

...Petitioners

V/s.

Shyamrao Moreshwar Kulkarni since deceased by his legal heirs and ors.

...Respondents

______________ Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. R. S. Mirpury, Advocates for the Petitioners.

Mr. S. G. Karandikar i/by Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Mr. Gaurav Shahane, Mr. Krushna Jaybhay and Ms. Sweta Shah, Advocates for Respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. Ketan Joshi, "B" Panel Counsel for the State. ______________ CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Dated : 11 February, 2025.

P.C. :

1.

The Petition challenges order dated 6th September, 2024 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) rejecting the Review Application filed by the Petitioners and confirming the order dated 5th January, 2023. By order dated 5th January, 2023, the MRT has confirmed the order passed by Tahasildar on 28th February, 2017 directing removal of possession of land Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date:

2025.02.14 10:32:30 +0530 PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR from the Petitioners and handing it over to the original land owners. 1 of

2.

I have heard Mr. Sakhare, learned senior advocate appearing for the Petitioners, Mr. Karandikar, learned advocate appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2 and Mr. Ketan Joshi, learned AGP for the State. 3.

After having heard the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, there appears to be no dispute to the position that the tenancy claim of the Petitioners in respect of the lands has already been negatived on account of notification under Section 88 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) bringing the land within the limits of the municipal corporation. The only point that is sought to be canvassed by the Mr. Sakhare is about jurisdiction of Tahasildar under provisions of Section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (the Code) to oust the Petitioners from possession of the land. He would submits that though Petitioners may have lost protection under the provisions of the Act, they continue to be tenants under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and they have a right to retain their possession till lawfully dispossessed by a decree passed by the Civil Court. 4.

In my view, once tenancy claim of the Petitioners got negatived, Petitioners have lost any right to remain in possession of the land in question. Therefore, exercise of jurisdiction by the Tahasildar under provisions of Section 59 of the Code appears to be perfectly in order. This Court also takes adverse notice of conduct of the Petitioners in entering into the arrangement with the land owners and the developers by accepting monetary consideration while giving away the possession of the land in question. As of today, the possession of the land has already been 2 of

taken away from the Petitioners. The land has been developed and the buildings are standing thereon.

5.

In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition.

6.

The Petition is accordingly disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] 3 of