HIRAJI TOLAJI BAGWAN Vs. SHAKUNTALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant Hiraji Tolaji was admittedly a protected lessee or tenant of the agricultural land being Survey No. 30 of village Madha, Taluqa Chikhali District Buldana. The land measures approximately 25 acres and 31 gunthas. The respondent who is mentally disabled became the landlady of the land in question in quite queer circumstances which to say the least are indefensible in law. Her father, one Mr. BrijIal Bansilal owned as many as 568 acres of land of which the suit lands are a part. The lands admittedly are ancestral. He effected first partition of his entire holding of lands on January 31, 1949 between himself on the one hand and his wife and a minor son on the other. On December 16, 1950, he effected a second partition of the very same lands between himself on the one hand and his wife and his son on the other. Again on June 29, 1959 he effected a third partition of the said lands between himself on the one hand and his wife and his two minor daughters including the respondent on the other. There is further no dispute that it is in this third partition that the suit lands were given to the share of the respondent and the respondent became the alleged landlady w.e.f. the date of the said partition.

(2.) It appears that sometime in 1962, the respondent through her guardian, namely her father Brij Lal initiated proceedings against the appellant for recovery of possession of the suit land on the ground of default in payment of rent for three years, namely 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62. By his decision of April 30, 1963 the Tehsildar dismissed the application holding that the respondent was not a landlady since the partitions in question were illegal. The Deputy Collector in appeal confirmed the said decision by his Order dated November 26, 1963. The respondent's revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also failed when the Tribunal rejected it by its decision of April 29, 1965. In the writ petition filed before the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution against the said decision of the three authorities below, the High Court by its Order dated October 4, 1966 remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for investigation into the validity of the partition.

(3.) Then started the second round of litigation. On remand, the Tehsildar by his decision of March 16, 1968 held that the partition effected on June 29, 1959 (which was the only material partition so far as the respondent was concerned) was bogus. Hence the notice of demand and therefore the proceedings for recovery of possession pursuant thereto were bad in law. It appears that thereafter in a different proceeding the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on June 25, 1968 had held that the said partition was binding. It is after this decision of the Tribunal as stated earlier, in an altogether different proceeding, that the matter came up for hearing in appeal filed by the respondent before the Deputy Collector, against the decision of the Tehsildar given on March 2, 1968. The Deputy Collector, therefore, followed the said decision of the Revenue Tribunal, and by his decision of April 16, 1969 held that the partition being valid, the respondent was the landlady of the suit land and, therefore, notice given by her terminating the tenancy on the ground of default of rent and the proceedings filed for recovery of the suit land were proper. He also held that the appellant was in arrears of rent for three years as contended by the respondent and, Therefore, allowed the said application for eviction of the appellant from the suit land. Against the said decision, the appellant preferred a revision before the Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal by its decision of September 15, 1970 confirmed the findings of the Deputy Collector. Aggrieved by the decision, the appellant preferred a writ petition before the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution, and the High Court by its impugned decision of June 21, 1974 dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.