Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging MRT Order in Land Tenancy Dispute. MRT's Reversal of Collector's Order Set Aside for Ignoring Binding Supreme Court Order and Limitation Under Section 33B of Bombay Tenancy Act.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 14:57:52

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petitions challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) dated November 30, 2023. The MRT had reversed the Collector's order which recognized the petitioners as landowners of the subject property. The factual background involves a certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 granted to Sadashiv Datar in 1958. The Supreme Court upheld this certificate in 1985. Datar filed an application under Section 33B for termination of tenancy in 1990, which was beyond the three-month limitation period prescribed under that section. Datar died in 1991, and his sisters Lilabai Tilak and others claimed rights. The Collector held that the petitioners were entitled to be landowners. The MRT reversed this, ignoring the binding Supreme Court order and the limitation issue. The High Court found that the MRT acted without jurisdiction and set aside its order, restoring the Collector's order. The court held that the MRT could not ignore the finality of the Supreme Court order and the limitation period under Section 33B. The petitions were allowed, and the MRT order was quashed.

Headnote

A) Tenancy Law - Section 88C Certificate - Binding Effect of Supreme Court Order - The Supreme Court upheld the grant of an 88C certificate to Datar, which became final. The MRT could not ignore this binding order while deciding the revision. (Paras 2-3)

B) Tenancy Law - Section 33B Application - Limitation - Under Section 33B, an application for termination of tenancy must be filed within three months from receipt of the 88C certificate. Datar's application in 1990 was beyond the limitation period, as the certificate was confirmed in 1985. (Paras 4-5)

C) Tenancy Law - Jurisdiction of MRT - The MRT exceeded its jurisdiction by reversing the Collector's order without considering the binding Supreme Court order and the limitation issue. The Collector's order was based on proper appreciation of facts and law. (Paras 6-7)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal erred in reversing the Collector's order that recognized the petitioners as landowners, by ignoring the binding Supreme Court order and the limitation period under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the MRT order dated November 30, 2023, and restored the Collector's order.

Law Points

Section 88C certificate
Section 33B application
limitation period
binding nature of Supreme Court order
jurisdiction of Revenue Tribunal
res judicata
bona fide need

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:16361

Writ Petition No. 6128 of 2024 with Writ Petition No. 12642 of 2024, Writ Petition (ST) No. 10666 of 2024, Writ Petition No. 12671 of 2024

2026-04-02

Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.

2026:BHC-AS:16361

S. G. Karandikar a/w Shashank Mangle, Harshad Sathe, Saurabh Butala, Aishwarya Hinge, Manvi Sharma, Shubham Gangan, Siddesh Bane, Pranil Vichare for Respondent Nos.3, 11 to 14 in WP/6128/2024 and for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6 in WP/12642/2024; Ms. Sulbha Chipade, Addl. G.P. for the State in WP/1267/2024; Mr. P. V. Nelson Rajan, Addl. G.P. for the State in WP/6128/2024; Mr. Bapusaheb Dahiphale, Addl. G.P. for the State in WP/10666/204; Ms. S. R. Crasto, Addl. G.P. for the State in WP/12642/2024

Vinayak Vasudev Tilak (deceased) and others

The State of Maharashtra through Tahsildar and others

Nature of Litigation

Writ petitions challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversing the Collector's order that recognized the petitioners as landowners.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought to quash the MRT order dated November 30, 2023, and restore the Collector's order.

Filing Reason

The MRT reversed the Collector's order without considering the binding Supreme Court order and the limitation period under Section 33B.

Previous Decisions

The Collector had held the petitioners entitled to be landowners. The MRT allowed a revision and reversed that order.

Issues

Whether the MRT erred in ignoring the binding Supreme Court order upholding the 88C certificate. Whether the MRT erred in not considering the limitation period under Section 33B for filing the application for termination of tenancy.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the MRT ignored the finality of the Supreme Court order and the limitation under Section 33B. The respondents argued in support of the MRT order.

Ratio Decidendi

The MRT acted without jurisdiction by ignoring the binding Supreme Court order and the limitation period under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Collector's order was based on proper appreciation of facts and law and deserved to be restored.

Judgment Excerpts

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to an order dated November 30, 2023, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), which allowed a revision sought by the Respondents, reversing an order of the Collector. The Supreme Court, by an order dated October 7, 1985 dismissed a Special Leave Petition and upheld the grant of the 88C Certificate in favour of Datar. Under Section 33B, such an application is required to be filed within three months from the receipt of the 88C Certificate.

Procedural History

In 1958, Datar was granted an 88C certificate. Litigation ensued, culminating in the Supreme Court order of October 7, 1985 upholding the certificate. Datar filed a Section 33B application in 1990. Datar died in 1991. The Collector passed an order in favor of the petitioners. The MRT reversed that order on November 30, 2023. The petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the MRT order.