MARUTI KRISHNA MATALE Vs. MOHAN KESHAV DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the heirs of tenant have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 29th October 1985 wherein the tribunal has rejected the Revision Application of the petitioners and confirmed the order passed by the learned Assistant Collector, Haveli Sub-Division, Pune, dated 7th February 1983 in an appeal filed by the tenant being TNC Appeal No. 140 of 1981 and inturn, even the learned Assistant Collector has also while dealing with the appeal of the tenant, while dismissing the appeal, confirmed the order of A. L. T. and Additional Tahsildar Haveli dated 18th October 1975 passed in Tenancy Case No. 173 filed by the respondent-tenant while deciding the application made by the respondent-Landlord under sections 29 and 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act"), wherein the Revenue Authority has granted possession of the land in favour of landlord out of Survey No. 141/1 of village Gorhe Khurd.

(2.) DURING the hearing, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. Sali, took me through the order passed by the authorities in a proceedings initiated by the landlord initially and order passed in the Appeal and the Revision Application moved at the instance of the tenant in respect of the granting possession of the land in favour of respondent-landlord while granting the application of the landlord under the Act. He also while arguing the matter, has taken me through the registered Partition Deed dated 28th March, 1958 in respect of allotment of the land in favour of respondent No. 1 landlord who was at the relevant time minor. He has also raised legal contention that on examining the order passed by the Revenue Authority, the Revenue Authroity has not followed requirement of law which is must while considering the request for taking possession of the land from the tenant. It is not in dispute that the original opponent is a tenant over the suit land as described from the order passed by the Revenue Authority and that the agricultural lands in dispute situated at village Gurhe Khurd, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune is occupied by the petitioner (tenant) since many years. These agricultural lands being Survey Nos. 41/12 admeasuring 0 acres 13 gunthas, Survey No. 62/7 0 acres 8 gunthas, Survey No. 67/11 1/4th gunthas (10 areas) and Survey No. 14/1 1 acre 34 gunthas.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has vehemently urged and raised a question of law that while deciding the proceedings initiated at the instance of the respondent landlord when the landlord had approached the Revenue Authority after giving notice to the tenant terminating his tenancy after he became major, he has sought for possession of the land for his bona fide and personal cultivation. According to the learned Counsel Mr. Sali, if we examine the record it will be clear that there cannot be any partition in favour of minor son viz. the respondent No. 1 during the lifetime of the father where his father was joined with his grand-father and the suit lands were standing at the relevant time, in the name of grand-father of the respondent No. 1. As per the case made out by the respondent-landlord that there was a registered partition deed in respect of the property dated 18th March 1958 and as per the said partition deed, the suit lands which are tenanted land, came to be allotted to the share of respondent No. 1 who was at the relevant time, minor aged about 4 years who was unable to cultivate the said land and accordingly, the said partition was effected to defeat the provisions of law and adversely affect the petitioner who was cultivating the said land as a tenant. On the tillers day, all the tenants were entitled to become owners of the suit land. It is only because of the partition deed, the said date was extended as the lands in question were allotted in the share of respondent No. 1 who was minor at the relevant time and that as affected adversely to the interest of the petitioner. According to Mr. Sali, even such partition is invalid and contrary to the provisions of section 31 (3) and section 32 (F) as well as section 32 (F) (1) of the proviso of the said Act and the share of such person namely as per the partition Deed, said survey numbers were allotted to respondent No. 1 in joint family and has not been separated by metes and bounds and it is the duty of Tahsildar to make proper inquiry and to reach his satisfaction that share of such minor in the land is separated having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land in proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property and not in a larger proportion. On the other hand, Mrs. Agarwal the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1- landlord, has supported the judgment of all the authorities and she submitted that once the tenant has accepted the respondent No. 1 has a landlord and further all the revenue entries in respect of suit lands, clearly show that by virtue of the registered partition-deed in respect of property dated 28th March 1958, the land in question occupied by the petitioner-tenant wherein the respondent has become the owner and if the tenant has not objected and accepted him as a landlord, all the authorities were justified in entertaining the application when the application under sections 29 and 31 was moved when the landlord has become major and admittedly the said proceedings were initiated after serving the notice to the tenant and accordingly, the Revenue Authority below on examining the application and evidence and more particularly the registered partition deed dated 20th March 1958, has rightly granted the said application by granting possession of the land Survey No. 14/1 as per the law and accordingly, she submitted that when all the authorities upto the Revenue Tribunal has not accepted the case of the petitioners-tenant and confirmed the order of granting the land this Court is not required to interfere in writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, she submitted that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.