BALU LAXMAN KHATIK DEAD Vs. BIRU RAMCHANDRA KOTMIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this appeal relates to agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 159/2, 161/2 and 189/7 situate at village Are, Taluka Karvir, Distt. Kolhapur. It is not disputed that Balu Laxman Khatik was the tenant of these lands. He died during the pendency of this appeal. The present appellants are the heirs and legal representatives of the said tenant. The respondent is the landlord. It is also not disputed that these lands are covered by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'The Act').

(2.) Sometime in 1957, the respondent- Landlord (for short 'landlord') made an application to the tenancy authority under Section 88-C of the Act for issuance of an exemption certificate and such a certificate was in fact issued on 1-4-1962. The landlord thereafter applied for possession of these lands on 7-6-1962 for bona fide personal cultivation under Section 33-B of the Act. Under the Scheme of Section 32 of the Act, such of the tenants who were cultivating the land on 1st April, 1957 would be entitled to purchase the said land and they shall be deemed to be the purchasers from the said date provided no proceedings at the instance of the landlord for possession under the Act were pending at that time. Since the landlord had applied for exemption certificate under Section 88-C prior to 1-4-1957 and since he had applied, after obtaining such certificate, for possession on 7-6-1962 under Section 33-B of the Act, the tiller's day stood postponed until the disposal of these proceedings. During the pendency of these two proceedings, Section 32-G proceadings under the Act were initiated but, however, these proceedings came to be dropped on 13-6-1963 as the tenant declined to purchase the lands under Section 32-G of the Act. The order of dropping the proceedings was made on the basis of the joint statement recorded by the tenancy authority of the landlord and the tenant. This statement of the tenant declining to purchase the land under Section 32-G of the Act was sought to be used by the landlord as an admission. The tenant had alleged to have made a statement that these lands were leased out to him for growing sugarcane. The significance of this statement is that if the lands were leased out for growing sugarcane, under Section 43-A (1) (b) then the provisions of Section 32 of the Act are not applicable. In the meantime, the application of the landlord under Section 33-B of the Tenancy Act was heard by the tenancy authorities and the final order in these proceedings was rendered by the Bombay High Court on 16-4-1977 by which the said application filed by the landlord stood rejected. It may also be noted that the landlord had filed a civil suit for recovery of the rent/damages against the tenant but the said suit was dismissed by the Civil Courts. On 31-10-1969, the tenant applied to the tenancy authorities for fixing the price of these lands under Section 33-C of the Tenancy Act. The Tehsildar after notice to the parties by his judgment and order dated 20-10-1971 fixed the purchase price holding that the tenant is entitled to purchase the land on the postponed date under Section 33-C of the Act and accordingly fixed the price of the lands. The appeal filed by the landlord came to be dismissed. The landlord's revision to the Maharasthra Revenue Tribunal was also dismissed. However, the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 2583 of 1974 (with Second Appeal No. 702 of 1975) by its judgment and order dated 14-2-1978 partly allowed the Special Civil Application filed by the landlord and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer for disposal in the light of the directions contained therein. The High Court was of the opinion that the appellate authority as well as the Revenue Tribunal did not consider the admission of the tenant and the other evidence on record properly. The High Court also found that the contention of the tenant as regards the issue of res judicata was also not dealt with by these authorities since these issues were vital in deciding the rights of the parties. The High Court while remanding the matter observe as under:-

(3.) The landlord aggrieved by the above decisions of the Deputy Collector and the Maharashtra Tribunal preferred Writ Petition No. 2170 of 1980 to the High Court. The said Writ Petition was heard by the same learned single Judge who by his judgment and order dated June 19, 1990 set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the three tenancy authorities and held that the admission made by the tenant is binding upon him and in the light thereof it must be held that the lands were leased out for growing sugar- cane and, therefore, Section 43-A (1)(b) of the Act applies. In this view of the matter, the tenant is not entitled to purchase the land under Section 32-C of the Act. The learned single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition filed by the landlord and set aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and dismissed the application filed by the tenant on 13-1-1969 for fixing the purchase price under Section 33-C of the Act. The tenant aggrieved by this order of the High Court filed this appeal after obtaining the special leave.