VIJAYABAI Vs. SHRIRAM TUKARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question raised in this appeal is whether on the facts and circumstances of this case when in a proceeding under Section 8 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, the respondent No. 1 in terms of the compromise declared himself not to be the tenant of the disputed land and in pursuance thereof his name being deleted by the order of the Tahsildar under Section 8(3) could the Tahsildar in exercise of his suo motu power under Section 49B after lapse of about 11 years declare respondent No. 1 to be tenant under the said Act

(2.) In the present appeal respondent No. 1 claims to be tenant of the suit land of which appellants and respondent No. 2 claim to be the landlord/owner. To appreciate the controversy it is necessary to give certain facts. On 20th March 1959 appellants' predecessors filed an application before the Tenancy Tahsildar for deleting the name of respondent No. 1 from the list of tenants to correct the records prepared under Section 8 (1) of the 1958 Act. According to the said application the suit land is owned and possessed by the applicants and they have been cultivating it personally by engaging Saldars and labourers. The non-applicant's father (Respondent No. 1) was engaged as a Saldar and worked as a Saldar in the field of the applicants for nearly 20 years. The respondent No. 1 was also engaged as such along with his father. The applicants also entrusted their bullocks and implement to the custody of their Saldars since the beginning. It was specifically averred in the said application that the Patwari of the village Dongarkhadala and Kherdi in collusion with the non-applicant had entered the name of the respondent No. 1 in the list of tenants prepared and published under Section 8. Hence a prayer was made for deleting the said name which was wrongly recorded therein. During the pendency of the said proceeding it is not in dispute a compromise was arrived at between the appellants and respondent No. 1 on 21st December 1960. In paragraph (g) of the said compromise respondent No. 1 admitted that he was never tenant of the appellants over the disputed land. The said compromise also spelt out other conditions. It seems that respondent No. 1 even prior to this compromise on 3rd December 1960 made an application in the said proceeding that his name be deleted from the list of tenants. This was done as earlier the parties seem to have arrived at a compromise which ultimately was only signed later. In pursuance of this on 30th December 1960 the Tahsildar ordered the deletion of name of respondent No. 1 in exercise of his power under Section 8 (3) read with Section 100(2) of the said Act. This fact was also recorded by the Tahsildar in his order. It is significant to record here that none of the parties filed appeal against this order and this became final.

(3.) In fact, after this order in pursuance of the compromise as aforesaid, 10 acres 38 gunthas of land situated at Mouza Kherdi was purchased by respondent No. 1 from the appellants for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/-. Hence not only the name of respondent No. 1 was deleted but the compromise was acted upon by respondent No. 1 by taking the aforesaid land from appellants under the said compromise. After lapse of about 11 years in 1971 the Tahsildar initiated proceeding suo motu under Section 49B of the said Act. In pursuance to this notice the appellants (landlord) filed the written statement and stated that the land in suit belongs to his family since 1940 and it was cultivated personally by the family by engaging Saldars. It was never leased out to anybody at any time. It was further stated that respondent No. 1 was also one of the Saldars (servant) who had been cultivating land as such. Respondent No. 1 filed reply by stating that he and his father cultivated the suit land as tenant. Respondent No. 1 however, admitted to have purchased the suit land of an area of 10 acres 38 gunthas from the appellants on 11th March 1961. The Tahsildar by means of order dated 2nd February 1971 with due consideration of the earlier order of Tahsildar passed under Section 8 (3) read with Section 100 (2) of the aforesaid Act also with due reference to the aforesaid compromise, held that respondent No. 1 had not cultivated the suit land as tenant during the year 1958-59 and hence he is not entitled for restoration of the suit land. Hence he dropped the proceedings under Sec. 49B. Aggrieved by this respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before Special Deputy Collector (Land Reforms) who allowed the appeal by holding, the compromise was brought upon under pressure and allurement, hence could not be acted upon thus in view of evidence on record held respondent No. 1 to be the tenant of the suit land primarily on the basis of sole entry recorded under Section 8 of the said Act published on 1st April 1959. The appellants challenged this order before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in revision which was dismissed. Thereafter a writ petition was filed in the High Court which was dismissed and finally the letters patent appeal in the High Court was also dismissed.