RUKHAMINIBAI Vs. MEMBER MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition challenges the decision passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 16th January, 1996, in Revision Application No. Ten. 143/90. The original proceedings related to land bearing S. No. 19/1 admeasuring 3. 04 ha of mouza Akot. The petitioners claim to be tenants-protected lessees in respect of the suit land. In the circumstances the application was filed by the petitioners before the tenancy authorities under section 49-A of the Act that they have become deemed purchasers by operation of law. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar on 21st March, 1990. Immediately, thereafter the petitioners entered into transaction with the third parties on 30th April, 1990 by executing the sale-deed which is duly registered. The fact that they had entered into said transaction was neither revealed before the appellate authority nor before the tribunal or even in the present writ petition. Nevertheless the appeal preferred by the landlord challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar on 21st March, 1990 was allowed and the declaration obtained by the petitioners that they have become deemed purchasers came to be set aside by order dated 28-9-2000. The Appellate Court mainly held that the suit land were situated in the Municipal areas and as such the provisions of the Tenancy Act had no application. The said view has been confirmed by the Tribunal in its order dated 16th January, 1996. It is against this decision present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. However no ground has been made out in the writ petition to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226. In the circumstances this petition is heard and decided as one filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The necessity of taking up this matter today for hearing arose on account of the application moved by respondent No. 2 pointing out that on 30th April, 1989, the petitioners created third party interest and this was never brought on record but is now revealed from the public documents copy of which have been annexed to the application. On perusing the said documents, which is mutation entry and 7/12 extract as well as copy of the sale-deed tendered across the Bar it will appear that the petitioners have created third party interest in respect of the suit land by the said sale-deed.

(2.) HAVING considered the rival submissions I am of the view that this is a fit case which should not be kept pending in this Court. In my view there is no ground made out by the petitioners so as to persuade this Court to reverse the concurrent view taken by the two courts below on the basis of the fact recorded by the Appellate Court that the land in question are situate within the Municipal limits. Since it is not possible to reverse the said finding of fact, it is not open for the petitioners to contend that they have become deemed purchasers by operation of law for no provisions of the Tenancy Act can be applied to the said lands.

(3.) BESIDES, what has weighed with the Court the most is conduct of the petitioners. From the record it is now revealed that the petitioners had created third party interest, taking advantage of the order passed by the Tahsildar on 21st March, 1990, without waiting for the period of limitation to file appeal against the said order. This was done for obvious purpose to make the matter fait accompli. Moreover, the fact that the said transaction has been entered into has not been revealed before any Court namely, the Appellate Court as well as the tribunal or for that matter in the present writ petition. In the circumstances, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence particularly, under Article 227 of the Constitution on account of their conduct.