RAMESH RAMNARAYAN DANGRE Vs. VITHABAI BHAUSAHEB WAKCHAURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Bala Laxman Landge was the land owner of survey Nos. 36/8, 36/9, 27/5 and 47/2 situated at village Induri in Ahmednagar District. He sold the land survey No. 47/2 in favour of the appellant under registered sale deed dated 27-11-1970. Proceedings were started by the land owner under Section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') before the tenancy authority contending that the sale deed pertaining to land survey No. 47/2 was invalid as the appellant was not an agriculturist. The authority, after hearing the parties by its order dated 30-8-1971 on the basis of evidence available, concluded that appellant was an agriculturist. In that view, the proceedings were dropped. This order attained finality as its invalidity was not challenged in any further proceedings.

(2.) Two lease deeds were executed by the land owner in favour of the appellant on 7-3-1969 for lease period of 10 years in respect of survey Nos. 36/8 and 36/9. Subsequently these lands were purchased by the appellant under registered sale deeds dated 9-6-1976. A lease deed was executed by land owner Balaji in favour of the appellant on 7-3-1975 for a period of 99 years in respect of the land bearing survey No. 27/5. The original land owner Balaji died on 29-8-1980. Immediately after his death, the respondents claiming to be his legal heirs, filed three tenancy cases challenging the validity of sale deeds in respect of survey No. 36/8 and 36/9 and lease deed relating to survey No. 27/5. Additional Tehsildar, Akola, dismissed all the three applications made by the respondents. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents filed three appeals before the Sub-Divisional Officer, questioning the validity and correctness of the order passed by the Tehsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), by a detailed order, dismissed the appeals concurring with the findings recorded by the Tehsildar. Thereafter, the respondents filed revision petitions before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. By a common order, the said Tribunal allowed the revision petitions and set aside the order of SDO in respect of survey Nos. 36/8 and 36/9 and remanded the case in respect of survey No. 27/5 for holding inquiry under Section 32-P of the Act. The appellant filed the writ petitions before the High Court questioning the validity and correctness of the common order passed by the Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions affirming the order of the Tribunal. Hence, these appeals.

(3.) The learned senior counsel for the appellant urged that (1) the Tribunal and the High Court committed an error in rejecting the case of the appellant when his status as an agriculturist had been declared by the competent authority in earlier proceeding in relation to survey No. 47/2 by the order of the competent authority dated 30-8-1971 which order remained unchallenged ; (2) the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while exercising revisional power under Section 76 of the Act and has acted as an appellate authority by re-appreciating the evidence in reversing the order of the appellate authority.