logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 BHC 1751 My Notes print Preview print print
Court : In the High Court of Bombay at Kolhapur
Case No : Writ Petition Nos. 3376, 3455 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH P. BRAHME
Parties : Chandrakant Bhikoba Pawar Versus Sub-Division Officer, Wai. & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: Dilip Bodake a/w Pruthviraj Dagade, Advocates. For the Respondents: A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Sanjay D. Rayrikar, Abhijeet Naik, AGPs, R3 to R7, Drupad S. Patil (through VC) a/w Rugwed R. Kinkar, Advocates.
Date of Judgment : 30-07-2026
Head Note :-
Maharashtra Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 88C -

Comparative Citation:
2026 BHC-KOL 6640,
Judgment :-

1. Heard the contesting parties.

2. Both petitions are directed against the distinct orders dated 29.06.2026 passed by the learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) vacating stay in the revisional proceedings pending before the Tribunal.

3. Mr. Bodake, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to vacation of stay to execution of order dated 14.01.2025 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), the respondents are likely to alienate the suit land and mutate the record of right. The impugned orders are likely to cause grave prejudice when substantive revisions are pending before the Tribunal. It is submitted that petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3376 of 2026 are in possession of respective suit lands and the respondents are falsely claiming to be in possession. No procedure was followed by respondents landlords to secure possession. It is submitted that Certificate under Section 88C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as “M.T.&A.L. Act” for sake of brevity) was obtained illegally and without hearing the petitioners. It is vehemently submitted that clause 2 of operative part of order dated 14.01.2025 is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that there was no reason to vacate the stay till final disposal of revision.

4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Patil would submit that operative clause 2 of order dated 14.01.2025 was extraneous and inconsequential. The respondents – private parties are landlords and armed with Certificate under Section 88C of M.T.&A.L. Act which was issued in 1960. It is submitted that the possession was handed over by the petitioners lawfully. The respondents are ready for final hearing on 03.08.2026 and there is no propriety in granting stay.

5. At the outset, it needs to be made clear that substantive Revision under Section 76 of the M.T.&A.L. Act are pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and posted for final disposal on 03.08.2026. The contentious issues can be dealt with by the Tribunal and this Court need not delve upon merits of matter much.

6. The controversy pertains to the exemption secured by the respondents - landlords under Section 88C of M.T.&A.L. Act on one hand and statutory benefits available for the tenants on another hand. The Tenancy Application No.01 of 2023 and 02 of 2023 were filed by the petitioners / tenants before the ALT, Tahasildar under Section 70B M.T.&A.L. Act. The A.L.T. Tahasildar refused to grant relief to the petitioners when the Certificate issued under Section 88C in favour of the respondents landlords was brought to his notice. Against the order of Tahasildar passed on 15.01.2024, appeal bearing Appeal No.02 of 2024 was preferred by the petitioners before the S.D.O. The same was dismissed on account of delay and following is the operative part :-

                   

7. Having rejected the appeal on delay, there was no necessity for S.D.O. to append the clarification in Clause 2 as referred above. The entire order is unexecutable. Clause 2 has created confusion and prompted the petitioners to apply for stay. The illegalities further perpetuated by order dated 27.03.2025 which is rightly rectified by the impugned order.

8. The judgment and order dated 14.01.2025 passed by the S.D.O. was subjected to revisions being Revision No.01 of 2025 and 02 of 2025 before the Tribunal. Initially, the Tribunal granted stay vide order dated 27.03.2025. It was continued and then vacated by impugned order dated 29.06.2026.

9. Clause no.2 of above referred operative part is misconceived and was incorrigible. The clause has created confusions. I find that the clause is extraneous.

10. The intricate questions on facts are involved in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out executability of operative clause no.2 by order dated 14.01.2025. Both parties have rival claim for possession. The respondents – landlords rightly or wrongly armed with Certificate under Section 88C of the M.T.&A.L. Act . In such a situation, I do not find that any error of jurisdiction or perversity in the impugned orders.

11. The substantive revisions are subjudice before the Tribunal. The alienation which are likely to be made by the respondents – landlords could be questioned in appropriate proceeding or before the appropriate forum. I find that the stay granted to order dated 14.01.2025 was inconsequential. I am not inclined to exercise jurisdiction in upsetting the impugned orders.

12. The Writ Petitions are dismissed.

13. The parties shall cooperate for final disposal of Revision No.01 of 2025 and 02 of 2025 on its own merits without being influenced by orders passed by this Court.

14. After pronouncement of the operative part of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for extension of interim relief, which was granted by the Tribunal.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents opposes the request.

16. The interlocutory orders are assailed in the writ petitions. The main proceedings are posted for final hearing on 03.08.2026. I have already taken a view that clause 2 of the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is inconsequential and, therefore, interim relief granted by the Tribunal is also inconsequential. The request is rejected.
 
  CDJLawJournal