LALITA RAMESH LASE & ORS. versus JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 16-12-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 185 
LALITA RAMESH LASE & ORS. 
v. 
JAIRAJ KANTILAL SONAWALA & ORS. 
(S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10706of2014) 
DECEMBER 16, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.J 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 - s. 70(B) 
A 
B 
- Status of protected tenant - Issue as regards petitioners and others 
claiming to be tenant in respect of certain plots - Applications uls. 
C 
70(B) allowed by the Tehsildar, however, when the matter reached 
before the High Court, the claim of the petitioners of being protected 
tenant, was negated - Meanwhile, amendment applications filed by 
the petitioners seeking that duration of cultivating possession be 
enhanced from 20-22 yrs to 40-45 yrs was allo·wed - On appeal, 
held: Applications filed by the petitioners were in a cyclostyled form 
D 
which did not adequately contain the particulars of the lands -
There was mis-match between the gut numbers and the survey 
numbers provided by the petitioners - There were inconsistencies 
in the chart submitted -Amendment applications did not contain the 
required endorsements to indicate the dates on which those had E 
been submitted and taken on record - Thus, the petitioners failed to 
prove their claim of protected tenants - Order passed by the High 
Court does not call for interference. 
Dismissing the Special Leave Petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The High Court noticed amongst others, that 
F 
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 noticed too, 
that by such amendment applications, an attempt had been made G 
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 
year 1982-83 showing the names of 25 persons as cultivators 
H 
185 
186 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1-1 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 s,c.R. 
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 rclatable to the disputed 
lands was also taken in consideration. [Para 9)(189-D-H] 
1.2 The 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. 
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 the face of the 
said anomalies involve highly disputed and contentious questions 
of facts. Having regard to the prolonged backdrop of the litigation 
and the several rounds of enquiries already undertaken, this Court 
is disinclined in the overall fact situation, to interfere with the 
well considered decision of the High Court. The petitioners, have 
failed over the years, in spite of several opportunities, to prove 
their claim of protected tenants,uncler the Act, by producing 
consistent convincing and cogent evidence in support thereof. 
Thus, judged in the totality of the a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.