SECRETARY, DEOSTHAN MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, WESTERN MAHARASHTRA, KOLHAPUR Vs. BHIMANNA MALLAPPA MALI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The lands bearing Survey Nos. 200/2 admeasuring 3 acres 2 gunthas and 201/2 admeasuring 12 acres 8 gunthas situate at village Madgyal admittedly belonged to Maruti Deo, a deity, through V.M. Kulkarni. It is also not disputed that the said Deosthan is managed by a Managing Committee which is under the supervision of the Secretary, Deosthan Managing Committee, Western Maharashtra, Kolhapur. It appears that since 1948, these lands were in possession of Bhimanna Mallappa Mali the first Respondent as a protected tenant on payment of rent to the Deosthan Managing Committee. The Deosthan Managing Committee found that the income received from the lands was too inadequate to manage Deosthan and, therefore, in a meeting of Deosthan Managing Committee, it was resolved to give these lands on lease for a period of five years. It was further resolved that the Managing Committee should move Tahsildar Jath to hold an auction in respect of these lands. Accordingly, the Tahsildar Jath held the auction sometime in 1978 and Rachappa Shivrudra Hiremath, the third Respondent, being the highest bidder, the lands were allotted to him on lease for a period of five years. Consequently, on June 20, 1979, the tenant was dispossessed and possession of these lands were given to Rachappa. Immediately sometime in July, 1979, the tenant applied to Tahsildar Jath under Sec. 29(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short Act) for possession of these lands on the ground that he was illegally dispossessed from the tenanted lands.

(2.) This petition of the tenant was contested by the Appellants as also by the third Respondent. The Appellant, however, did not file any written statement but the third Respondent filed his say. According to him, the Managing Committee was fully authorised to request the Tahsildar to auction these lands and he being the highest bidder is entitled to continue in possession in terms of the auction. The tenant has no right to challenge the auction. He has also no right to claim the possession of these lands under the provisions of the Act. The tenant was not unlawfully dispossessed from the lands. He being the highest bidder in public auction, he cannot be dispossessed from the lands in a proceeding initiated under Sec. 29(1) of the Act. The Tahsildar Jath granted the application filed by the tenant holding that he could not be deprived of the possession of these lands being the tenant and accordingly directed that the possession be restored. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, the Appellant and the third Respondent filed two separate appeals before the Collector who after hearing the parties by his judgment and order dated 16 -8 -1979, upheld the direction given by the Tahsildar for restoring the possession of these lands but, however, he held that the tenant's application would more appropriately fall under Sec. 84 of the Act and not under Sec. 29. Accordingly, in exercise of his jurisdiction under Sec. 84 of the Act, he directed that the third Respondent be evicted and the tenant be put in possession of these lands. Feeling aggrieved by this order, the Respondent No. 3 preferred a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur. Learned Single member of the said Tribunal held that these lands were exempted from the operation of the Act by virtue of Sec. 88(l)(a) of the Act. Consistent with this finding, the Tribunal dismissed the application filed by the tenant as not maintainable and consequently, set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Collector. Aggrieved by this judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the tenant preferred the Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Bombay High Court, after hearing the parties, by its judgment and order dated January 14,1983, allowed the Writ Petition partly and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The High Court held that the Revenue Tribunal was wrong in allowing a new point to be raised as regards non -application of the Act by virtue of Sec. 88(l)(a) of the Act. The High Court recorded a specific finding that Sec. 88(l)(a) of the Act had no application because the lands neither belong to the government nor the third Respondent "held on lease from the government". The High Court, therefore, while setting aside the finding of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, remanded the matter back to the said Tribunal to consider the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Tahsildar and the Collector in accordance with law. It is against this order made by the High Court on January 14, 1983, the Secretary, Dcosthan Managing Committee, the Appellant has filed a special leave petition in this Court which was beyond a period of limitation by 821 days. This Court, however, condoned the delay and granted special leave out of which Civil Appeal No. 756 of 1991 arises.

(3.) Pursuant to the order of remand dated January 14, 1983 passed by the High Court, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal after hearing the parties by its judgment and order dated April 24, 1985 dismissed the revision application filed by the Revision Petitioner. Aggrieved by this order passed by the tribunal, the Appellant preferred Writ Petition to the High Court, but the same was dismissed summarily on August 14, 1985. It is against this order the Appellant has filed Civil Appeal No. 757 of 1991 after obtaining the special leave.