DAYANDEO GANPAT JADHAV Vs. MADHAV VITHAL BHASKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted by the appellant against the judgment and order passed by a single Judge of the High Court of Bombay on August 30, 2000 in Writ Petition No.5844 of 1987. By the said order, the High Court quashed and set aside the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Junnar Sub-Division, Khed (Pune) on September 24, 1985 and confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision Application as also in Review Petition on September 29, 1986 and October 1, 1987 respectively.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy in the appeal, the relevant facts may be stated in brief.

(3.) The case of the appellant before this Court is that the disputed property consists of agricultural land bearing Survey No.521/A/4B, Gut No.2326 situate at Village Chakan, District Pune admeasuring 15 gunthas. The land originally belonged to one Vitthal Babaji Bhaskar. Hari Ganpat Jadhav, ancestor of the appellant was the tenant of that land since 1929. After the death of Hari, his son Ganpat was cultivating the land as tenant. Thereafter the appellant continued to cultivate it. According to the appellant, on the 1st April, 1957, the tenant became deemed purchaser of the land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Admittedly, on that day, i.e. April 1, 1957 (Tillers day), Ganpat (father of the appellant) was in possession of suit land as tenant. Under Section 32 of the Act, therefore, Ganpat became deemed purchaser. The Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khed passed an order on November 16, 1959 under Section 32-P of the Act holding that the tenant had surrendered the land as he was not interested in purchasing it and hence the purchase had become ineffective. The Mamlatdar recorded the statement of the tenant (Ganpat) and of the landlord (Vitthal) and held that the possession of the land should be handed over to the landlord. It is the contention of the appellant that the provisions of the Act had not been complied with and as the tenant became deemed purchaser, the order passed by the Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal was non est. It was also his case that the possession of the land was never handed over to the landlord.