The Bombay High Court has recently ruled that when a brother cultivates agricultural land owned by his widowed sister, it is treated as farming by a “family member.” Because of this, it does not count as a deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act.

The Court explained that if a close relative is working on the land with the owner’s permission, especially in such family situations, it cannot be considered a tenancy.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Sandeep V. Marne of the Bombay High Court.

Background of Land Dispute:

The dispute is about agricultural land in Village Nimgaon-Mhalunge, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. The land was originally owned by Shankar Kisangir Gosavi. After his death in 1931 and the death of his son Dattu in 1934, the land passed to his widow, Parvatibai.

Parvatibai later adopted her brother Gyanba and gave him a new name,Raghunathgir Shankargir Gosavi. Because of this adoption, Raghunath became her legal heir and had the right to inherit her property, including the disputed land.

Tenancy Claim by Brother:

Another of Parvatibai’s brothers, Kashinath Shivram Bharati, claimed tenancy rights over the land. He asserted that he was cultivating the land on “tiller’s day”, 1 April 1957, and in 1993, he started proceedings under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to claim tenancy rights.

Tribunal’s Initial Decision :

The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) initially accepted Kashinath’s claim and fixed the purchase price of the land. However, Raghunath’s heirs challenged this decision, and the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) sent the case back to the ALT for a fresh enquiry.

ALT Rejects Claim:

The Court order further states :

“In remanded proceedings, the ALT found … there was no evidence of Kashinath of cultivation as tenant as on tiller’s day of 1 April 1957. This is how ALT, by Order dated 5 January 2016, proceeded to reject the tenancy claim of Kashinath in respect of all the suit lands bearing Gat Nos.452, 495, 552, 538, 554 and 537. Accordingly, the Mutation Entry No.2057 effected on the basis of previous order of the ALT was set aside.”

Protection for Widow’s Land:

The court also observed that the land retained by Parvatibai had special legal protection as she was a widow, so Section 32F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act applied, which means no one can claim tenancy rights over such land.

The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), by order dated 16 May 2016, affirmed the findings of the Tribunal. Subsequently, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), in its judgment dated 30 December 2019, also upheld the decision in revision.

These decisions together confirmed that Kashinath had no tenancy rights over the disputed land, and his claim was finally rejected.

High Court Final Decision:

In March 2026, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Kashinath’s heirs.

The court held that :

“In my view, a detailed enquiry has been conducted by the ALT and SDO while declining tenancy claim of Kashinath. The findings recorded by the ALT and SDO have been confirmed in Revision by the MRT. No element of perversity can be traced in the findings recorded by ALT, SDO and MRT. This Court is otherwise satisfied that the ultimate conclusions reached are that Kashinath can never be tenant in respect of suit lands.”

Even though the judgment has been delivered, the Court has directed that the earlier stay order will continue for another eight weeks, giving the parties time to consider their next legal steps.

Case Details : Late Kashinath Shivram Bharati alias Gosavi. V/s. Laxman Gyanba Bharati alias Giri and Ors