KASHIRAM MAHIPATI BHASKAR Vs. KHANDU TULSHIRAM JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment of the M. R. T. , Pune dated 23rd April, 1987 in MRT-P-III-18/83 (TNC. A. 86/83)

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be the tenants in respect of the land bearing 275/11, 276/68, 274/8e/1 and 274/88 all situated at village Sawargaon, Taluka Junnar, District Pune. The respondents are the owners in respect of the suit lands.

(3.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts giving rise to the present proceedings are that section 32g proceedings were initiated in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 274/8e/1 and Survey No. 274/88 wherein purchase price came to be fixed and mutation entry in that behalf was also recorded. However, the said proceedings were eventually dropped since the original owner of the suit lands viz. Gangubai was widow on the tiller day i. e. 1-4-1957 on account of which the tenants right to purchase the said lands stood postponed by virtue of section 32f of the B. T. and A. L. Act. The original owner Gangubai, predecessor in title of the respondents, died on 23-3-1979. It appears that some time in the year 1981 the petitioners moved an application for initiating the proceedings under section 32g of the Act on the ground that he had become deemed purchaser in respect of the said land and thus prayed for determining the purchase price. The Addl. Tahasildar by his order dated 3rd July, 1982 was pleased to order that the lands bearing Survey No. 274/8e/1 and 275/11 out of aforesaid 4 lands be sold to the petitioner-tenant at a price of Rs. 276/-, as per section 32g of the said Act. However, with regard to the other 2 lands, the Addl. Tahasildar merely ordered that the respondents shall hand over possession thereof to the petitioners. The aforesaid order passed by the Addl. Tahasildar and ALT, Junnar was accepted by the petitioners and the said become final and binding upon the petitioner. However, the respondents challenged the correctness of the said order, inter alia, contending that the lower authority had committed serious error in fixing the purchase price in respect of the suit lands and also in ordering handing over of possession of other two lands. The appeal Court dismissed the appeal being devoid of merits. It appears that the Appellate Court has not adjudicated the rival contentions and has disposed of the appeal virtually by an operative order. Naturally, being dissatisfied, the respondents preferred revision application before M. R. T. , Pune. The Tribunal by impugned judgment and order dated 23rd April, 1987 allowed the revision application and was please to set aside the decisions of both the courts below. The Tribunal has held that the question of initiating proceedings under section 32g for fixation of the purchase price was wholly misconceived for the simple reason that the tenant had failed to exercise option to purchase the suit lands within the stipulated period after the death of widow Gangubai, original owner. The Tribunal, therefore, held that even assuming that the petitioners were tenants on the tiller day i. e. 1-4-1957 even then they would not be entitled to purchase the suit lands as deemed purchasers for having failed to give intimation in the prescribed manner under section 32f of the said Act. The Tribunal has also held that the petitioners have failed to show any documentary evidence that they were in possession of the suit lands or were dispossessed by the respondents-landlord. The Tribunal thus held that mere entry in 7 x 12 extract i. e. record of rights cannot create tenancy in favour of the petitioners. Taking this view of the matter, the Tribunal allowed the revision application in its entirety by setting aside the orders passed by the two courts below.