VITHABAI BALWANT JADHAV Vs. SHRIPATI TUKARAM JORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has been filed by the petitioner -landlady challenging the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 28.7.1986.

(2.) THE husband of the Petitioner -landlady, original owner, died on 31.7.1944. On the tiller's day, i.e. 1.4.1957, the petitioner was a disabled landlady and as per the provisions of Section 32F of the B.T. and A.L. Act, the tiller's day; and consequently the right of the tenant to purchase the land as deemed tenant, stood postponed. Nevertheless, proceedings under Section 32G of the Act were initiated and public notice in that behalf was given on 1.5.1961 for fixing the purchase price in respect of the suit land bearing S. Nos. 70(2)(B) situated at Khamgaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. In the said proceedings, before the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. No. 4. Haveli, one of the issue framed was - as to whether the tiller's day is postponed, which is evident from the order passed by the said authority on 14.2.1964. Although the said issue was specifically framed, but the same has not been adjudicated upon by the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar was pleased to allow the said proceedings in favour of the tenant by fixing the purchase price in respect of the suit land. On the basis of the said order the tenant deposited the purchase price and also obtained certificate under Section 32M.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, inter alia, contending that the Court below was in error in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. The respondents resisted the said revision application preferred by the petitioner and contended that the petitioner had knowledge about the 32G proceedings and as such no indulgence be shown to the petitioner and the appeal as presented by the petitioner after lapse of about 17 years deserved to be dismissed. The respondents further contended that the petitioner had stated before the authorities that she had no objection if the suit lands were purchased by the respondents as tenants and it was not open for the petitioner to resile from the said statement. The respondents thus contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The Tribunal however, after considering the rival submissions was pleased to dismiss the revision application filed by the petitioner. The Tribunal mainly held that the petitioner in her statement before the authorities has expressed her willingness for purchase of the suit lands by the respondents and put her thumb mark on the statement so made. The Tribunal, although held that the petitioner was a widow on the tiller's day and also having noticed that on account of her disability the right to purchase the suit lands of the respondents -tenants stood postponed, however, further held that the petitioner had waived her right and it was therefore not open for the petitioner to contend to the contrary. According to the Tribunal, there was no infirmity in the order passed by the first authority fixing purchase price in respect of suit lands under Section 32G of the Act, in which case the appeal filed by the petitioner was clearly barred by limitation. Accordingly, the revision application was dismissed by the Tribunal.