GANPAT BAJIRAO JAGTAP Vs. JAYWANT TUKARAM JAGTAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 31-10-1985 in Revision No. 8 of 1983. Briefly stated the petitioners are landlords in respect of agricultural lands bearing Survey No. 162/1, 162/3, 164/4 and 214 situated at village Belsar, Tahsil Purandhar, District Pune. It would be relevant facts it would be essential to reproduce the genealogy of the parties which is as under :-From the said genealogy it will be seen that parties are related to each other through common ancestral Tukaram. The said lands were originally owned by Tukaram. After his demise his son Anandrao started claiming (sic cultivating) the suit land and thereafter Bajirao, son of Anandrao started cultivating the suit land till 1950. In the year 1950 Bajirao died leaving behind petitioners as his heirs. Petitioner No. 1 is the son and petitioner No. 2 is the wife of said Bajirao. It appears that since the petitioner No. 2 was widow and petitioner No. 1 was minor at the relevant time, the uncle Jaywant started cultivating the suit land. From the genealogy it will be seen that Jaywant was real brother of Anandrao, through whom the petitioners claim to have inherited the suit land. In the above mentioned circumstances, said Jaywant cultivated the suit land till the tillers day on 1-4-1957. The tenancy authority therefore initiated suo motu proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947 (sic 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in respect of the suit land, however, by an order dated 20-4-1963 the same stood postponed in view of the fact that petitioners were disabled landlords at the relevant time. By another Order dated 30-7-1963 the tillers day stood postpon with regard to one of the suit lands bearing Survey No. 214. It is not in dispute that on 29-6-1967 petitioner No. 1 became major. This date assumes importance as the period for giving intimation under section 32-F of the Act would commence on this date. It appears that respondent gave intimation to the landlord only on 16th July 1970, which is beyond the prescribed period of 2 years from the date on which the disability of the landlords ceases. Further, admittedly, the respondents did not send any intimation to the tribunal as required under the provisions of section 32-F of the Act. The petitioners have sent reply to the aforesaid intimation on 30th July 1970. Respondents thereafter did not take any further steps, however, the authorities initiated suo motu enquiry for determination of the purchase price under section 32-G of the Act in respect of the suit land for the first time in the year 1974. The said proceedings were initiated only against the Petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the petitioner No. 2 appeared and raised a preliminary objection and also prayed for joining her as party to the enquiry. This objection was raised on 10th May 1974, which came to be rejected. Against the said order the petitioner No. 2 preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Pune which was also rejected on 24th December, 1976. In further appeal preferred by the petitioner No. 2 direction came to be passed to join the petitioner No. 2 as party to the suo motu enquiry under section 32-G, on 15th November 1978. Thereafter suo motu enquiry under section 32-G was proceeded before the Addl. Tahasildar, Purandar. During the pendency of the said enquiry the petitioners uncle Jaywant expired and his eldest son Yeshwant started cultivating the suit land. It is relevant to note that Yeshwant had made statement in the above said proceedings that he was not willing to purchase the suit land. On the other hand, another son of Jaywant Shri Baburao expressed willingness to purchase the suit land. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Addl. Tahsildar, Purandar by his order dated 3rd April 1981 held that respondents were cultivating the suit land on the tillers day and as such were deemed tenants and entitled to purchase the suit land. The Tahasildar fixed the purchase price of the suit lands by the said order. Against the said decision the petitioners took the matter in appeal before the Addl. Collector, Pune being Appeal No. 43 of 1981. The Addl. Collector, Pune was pleased to dismiss the said appeal by order dated 2nd November 1982. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Addl. Tahasildar that respondents were tenants on the tillers day and thus entitled to purchase the suit lands. The petitioners carried the matter in revision before M. R. T. , Pune being Revision No. 8 of 1983. The tribunal was pleased to dismiss the revision application preferred by the petitioners and confirmed the concurrent findings recorded by courts below by order dated 31st October 1985.

(2.) IT is against the aforesaid concurrent findings and orders passed by the courts below the present writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed. The petitioners have challenged the decision of the courts below on various counts. However, in my view, it is wholly unnecessary to examine each of the ground raised on behalf of the petitioners, but it would be appropriate to leave the said questions open with liberty to the petitioners to raise the same at an appropriate stage if and when an occasion arises. According to me the petition should succeed on the sole ground that the courts below have totally misdirected themselves in not adjudicating the main question as to whether the respondents can be said to be tenants in respect of the suit land at all.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to examine this matter in greater detail, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions which are attracted in deciding the present matter. Section 2 (6) reads as under :