GOVINDA BALA PATIL Vs. GANPATI RAMCHANDRA NAIKWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. One Govinda Bala Patil, since deceased, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, hereinafter referred to as "the landlord", owned land being R.S. No. 51 admeasuring 35 gunthas at Village Pandewadi within Taluka Radhanagari in the District of Kolhapur. A proceeding under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", was initiated by one Rama Dattu Naikwade, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, for determination of price of the land on the plea that he shall be deemed to have purchased the land. The Additional Tahsildar & ALT, Radhanagari, at the first instance, held that the land in question was leased out for growing sugarcane and, accordingly, dropped the proceeding. However, in appeal, the said order was set aside and the matter ultimately remitted back to him to hold fresh inquiry. Accordingly, the Additional Tahsildar held fresh inquiry and again by its order dated 10th of December, 1981 reiterated its earlier finding and held that the land was leased out for growing sugarcane and the proceeding was dropped. The tenant thereafter preferred appeal which was heard by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shahuwadi Division, Kolhapur who allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Additional Tahsildar on its finding that the landlord has failed to prove the specific purpose of the lease. The landlord then preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal", which set aside the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer and restored that of the Additional Tahsildar. While doing so, the Tribunal held as follows:

(2.) The tenant assailed the aforesaid order before the High Court in a writ petition. The High Court by the impugned order set aside the order of the Tribunal and held that the Tribunal erred in setting aside the finding of the Sub-Divisional Officer that the land in question was not leased out for sugarcane cultivation. The High Court, in this connection, has observed as follows:

(3.) The High Court has further held that Section 43A of the Act will not govern the field as the lease in question was not given to more than one person. At this juncture, we consider it appropriate to reproduce the reasoning of the High Court in this regard: