PANDURANG VISHNU ZODAGE Vs. BABURAO BABAN GOSAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 13-6-1986 in Revision No. 2 of 1984.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 is the owner in respect of the land bearing S. No. 149/1/b-1 situated at Ghodegaon village, admeasuring 2 H. 33 Ares. The respondent No. 1 on 1-10-1997 filed an application before the A. L. T. and Addl. Tahsildar, Ambegaon under section 32-O of B. T. and A. L. Act, contending that he is the owner of the land in question, whereas the petitioner and respondent No. 2, though claim to be tenants in respect of the suit land, have failed to exercise right to purchase the suit land as prescribed under section 32-O of the Act; and therefore, become liable to be evicted from the suit land and possession thereof be made over to the respondent No. 1. In the said application, the respondent No. 1 disputed that he had created any tenancy rights in favour of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 in respect of the suit land, nevertheless contended that since the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, claim to be tenants, they were under an obligation to exercise right to purchase the suit land within the specified period and having failed to exercise the said right become liable to be evicted from the suit land. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2, who are brothers and were living jointly, appeared in the said proceedings. It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 2 that they were tenants in respect of the suit lands and have paid the rent some times in the form of crop share and also paid the land revenue assessment of the suit lands. According to them they were cultivating the suit land as tenants for last more than 9/10 years from the relevant time which could be substantiated by the entry in tenancy column from the year 1968-69 in the village records of VF 7 x 12 extract. What is interesting to note is that in the said proceedings the petitioner admitted that he had failed to exercise the right to purchase the land within the specified time. In the circumstances, the A. L. T. and Addl. Tahasildar Ambegaon by his order dated 14-12-1977 allowed the application preferred by the respondent No. 1. The said authority declared that the tenants have failed to exercise right to purchase the land and thus ordered that the suit land be disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2) of section 32-P of the Act. Against the said decision the petitioner alone preferred an appeal under section 74 of the Act before the Assistant Collector. On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 acquiesced of the order of eviction by not challenging the same before the competent Court. Although the petitioner preferred appeal, however, no such appeal could be maintained in law against an order passed by the Tenancy Court under section 32-O of the Act. In the circumstances the Assistant Collector treated the said appeal as revision application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The Assistant Collector was pleased to allow the said revision application and set aside the order passed by the Tenancy Court. According to the Assistant Collector, section 32-O of the Act would merely empower the tenant to purchase the suit land but did not invest any right in favour of the owner to get back the possession of the land in the event the tenant fails to exercise the said right. Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Assistant Collector, the respondent No. 1 preferred revision before the M. R. T. Pune under section 76 of the Act. The respondent No. 1 contended that the Assistant Collector acted without jurisdiction inasmuch as neither an appeal nor any revision could be maintained against the order of Tenancy Court passed under section 32-O of the Act. With regard to the merits, respondent No. 1 contended that there was no infirmity in the order passed by the first Tenancy Court, particularly in view of the admission on behalf of the petitioner that he had failed to exercise his right to purchase the suit lands within the specified time. It is relevant to point out that the revision preferred by the respondent No. 1 was barred by limitation. However, by a speaking order dated 14-6-1985 the Tribunal condoned the delay and directed that the revision be heard on merits. The order condoning the delay in filing the revision application has not been challenged by the petitioner or the respondent No. 2 at any point of time. The Tribunal, after carefully considering the rival stand, by its order dated 30-6-1986, held that no appeal under section 74 or revision under section 76 or section 76-A of the Act could be maintained before the Assistant Collector against the order passed by the Tenancy Court under section 32-O of the Act. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the order passed by the Assistant Collector dated 21-10-1980 was nullity and without jurisdiction. The tribunal having held that the order passed by the Assistant Collector was nullity and without jurisdiction, it was wholly unnecessary for the Tribunal to examine the merits of the contentions. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, in the first place held that the claim of the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 that they were tenants could not be established merely on the strength of their possession of the suit lands. The Tribunal held that since the petitioner and respondent No. 2 have admitted that they did not exercise right to purchase the suit lands within the specified time as required under section 32-O of the Act, they became liable for being dispossessed from the suit land as per the provisions of section 32-P of the Act. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the order passed by the first Tenancy Court dated 14-12-1977.

(3.) AGAINST the said decision the petitioner alone has preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The alleged other tenant has been impleaded respondent No. 2 in this writ petition. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, the respondent No. 2 has expired and no steps were taken by the petitioner to bring his heirs on record due to which the name of the respondent No. 2 has been deleted. In other words, the order passed against the original respondent No. 2 has become final inasmuch as he did not challenge the order passed by the Tenancy Court nor he has challenged the impugned order passed by the Tribunal before this Court. There is another important development which has taken place during the pendency of this writ petition that the petitioner is said to have handed over possession of the suit lands to the respondent No. 1 on 12-6-1987. In view of this development, this writ petition, in my view, has in fact become infructuous.