LAXMINARAYAN DIPCHAND MAHESHWARI Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court rejecting the appellant-landlords' application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution with regard to a revenue matter under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (briefly the Act). The second respondent thereinafter the respondent) was the cultivating tenant under the appellant-landlords. It was never in dispute in any of the earlier proceedings that the respondent was personally cultivating the land as a tenant.

(2.) On a report of the patwari submitted on April 6. 1963, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Malkapur, took action under Section 46 read with Section 48 of the Act for fixing the price of the land in possession of the respondent. The appellants contested the proceeding without success and an appeal preferred before the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy met with the same fate. The appellants then preferred a petition of revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur that also failed. As noticed earlier eventually the High Court also rejected the writ application. The short question that had been persistently raised in all the earlier proceedings and has been strenuously urged by. Dr. Barlingay before us is whether m view of S. 43 (14A) of the Act the order of the Revenue Tribunal is legally sustainable.

(3.) In order to appreciate the above submission it is necessary to look at the relevant provisions Section 41 (1) reads as follows: