RADHABAI BALKRISHNA DESHPANDE Vs. BABU DHONDU SHEWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, dated 22-4-1983. Writ Petition No. 2806 of 1983 is filed by the owners in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos. 127 and 59/1 (part), situate at village Chinchodi, Tahsil- Ambegaon, District Pune; whereas Writ Petition No. 2301 of 1990 is filed by the alleged tenants in respect of the said lands. (The land owners will be referred to hereinafter as petitioners and the alleged tenants as respondents ). To be more accurate, petitioner No. 1 is the original owner of the suit lands and petitioner No. 2 is the transferee, who has purchased the suit lands from petitioner No. 1.

(2.) THE present proceedings are arising out of suo motu proceedings initiated by the Mamlatdar and Tenancy Awal Karkun under section 84-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act" ). The reason for initiating the said action indicated by the authority is that the petitioners, the original landowners, had sold these lands in contravention of the provisions of section 64 of the Tenancy Act.

(3.) BEFORE I proceed to consider the rival contentions, the facts on the basis of which the present proceedings arise can be broadly stated as follows: The suit lands were originally owned by petitioner No. 1 on the tillers day, i. e. , 1-4-1957. Respondent No. 1 was the tenant in respect of the said lands on the tillers day. However, since petitioner No. 1 was a widow at the relevant time, the right to purchase the suit lands of respondent No. 1 stood postponed, in view of section 32-F of the Tenancy Act. Later on, in the year 1962, suo motu proceedings under section 32-G of the said Act were initiated for fixing the purchase price in respect of the said lands. In the said proceedings, the respondent-tenant appeared before the concerned authority and made a statement that he was not interested in purchasing the suit lands and that section 32-G proceedings be dropped. On the basis of the said statement made by the tenant, the said section 32-G proceedings came to be dropped. Since the respondent-tenant failed to exercise the option to purchase the suit lands, as required under the Act, the authorities initiated proceedings under section 32-P of the Act. In the said proceedings, the respondent-tenant handed over physical possession of the suit lands to the petitioner No. 1, without any demur.