SAVALIRAM GOTIRAM TELI Vs. MADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the question that falls for our consideration is as to whether heirs of a tenant governed by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') can claim restoration of possession of the land under the provisions of Section 32 (1-B) of the Act when such proceedings were initiated suo motu by the Mamlatdar concerned. The Additional Mamlatdar, the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal held in favour of the heirs of the tenant and ordered restoration of possession of the lands from the respondent-landlords. The High court of Bombay by the judgment under appeal took a contrary view and held that such proceedings are maintainable only for the tenant concerned and not for his heirs. It is this view of the Bombay High court which is brought in challenge in the present proceedings by the heirs of the erstwhile tenant.

(2.) A few relevant facts may be noted at the outset. One Savaliram Gotiram Teli was the tenant of three agricultural lands being Surveys Nos. 88, 89 and 90 situated at Village Trimbak in Nasik Taluka in Maharashtra State. Respondents were the landlords of the said lands. On the appointed day, that is, 15/6/1955 the said tenant was in occupation of these lands. He was dispossessed by the landlords prior to 1/4/1957 otherwise than under an appropriate order under Section 29 of the Act. After dispossessing the tenant the respondent-landlords remained in possession of the said lands till 31/7/1969. The Additional Mamlatdar instituted suo motu proceedings under Section 32 (1-B) of the Act on the ground that the tenant was in possession of the lands on the appointed day and he was dispossessed prior to the tillers day, that is, 1/4/1957 by the landlords without following due procedure of law and the lands in question were in possession of the landlords or their successors-in-interest on 31/7/1969 and, therefore, the respondents were liable to restore the possession of the lands to the heirs of the tenant even though the tenant in the meantime had died in 1959. As all the requisite conditions for applicability of Section 32 (1-B) of the Act were found to have been satisfied the Special Additional Tahsildar, Nasik by his order dated 20/8/1971 directed the respondent-landlords to restore the lands to the heirs of the tenant under Section 32 (1-B) of the Act for personal cultivation. The said order was challenged by the landlords by filing Tenancy Appeal which came to be dismissed by Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, Nasik on 10/1/1972. Respondent-landlords carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal under Section 76 of the Act. That revision application was also dismissed. It is thereafter that the respondents, aggrieved by the order of the Revenue tribunal dated 2/3/1973, carried the matter in appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to the High court of Bombay. The only question argued before the High court by the respondents was as to whether the proceedings under Section 32 (1-B) of the Act for the benefit of the heirs of the original tenant could be maintained. The learned Single Judge of the High court by his order dated 1/3/1978 persuaded himself to hold that such proceedingswere not maintainable for the heirs of the erstwhile tenant and only the tenant could have initiated such proceedings and as he had died in 1959 and as during his lifetime he had taken no steps to get restoration of possession of the lands within two years from the date of dispossession as per Section 29 of the Act his tenancy rights had got extinguished and could not be inherited by the appellant- heirs and consequently the proceedings under Section 32 (1-B) of the Act were liable to be quashed on that ground. It is the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge of the High court which is brought in challenge in the present proceedings as noted earlier.

(3.) At the time when this appeal was finally heard before us it was brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the appellants that the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge which was reported in Madhukar Yeswant Patankar v. Savleram Goliram Teli has been overruled by a division bench of the High court of Bombay in the case of Pandharinath Sakharam Chavan v. Bhagwan Ramu Kate and it has been held by the division bench of the High court that such proceedings under Section 32 (1-B) of the Act were maintainable even at the instance of the heirs of the original deceased tenant if the statutory conditions for applicability of the section were complied with.