SAMBHAJI SHRIPATI BANKAR Vs. KESHAV RANGNATH EKBOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners impugn judgement and order rendered by learned Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in Revision Application No. 4/1989, confirming the judgement and order rendered by SubDivisional Officer, Ahmednagar in T.N.C. Appeal No. 4/1988.

(2.) Original petitioners were real brothers interse. Their father, namely, Shripati Kanhu Bankar was the original tenant of two (2) parcels of lands viz. Survey No. 125, admeasuring 11 hectares 89 Ares and Survey No. 124B, admeasuring 00 Hectares 24 Ares, situated at village Walunj under Ahmednagar district. The deceased respondent No. 1 was original owner of the above referred lands. In the year 1959, Shripati Kanhu Bankar had filed proceedings for exercising right to purchase the lands in question. The proceedings were terminated against him for the reason that he was then in possession of land more than the permissible limits under the provisions of the Maharashtra Ceiling on Holdings Act, 1961 (for short, "the Ceiling Act"). The Tribunal directed thereafter that appropriate action under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "the BT&AL Act") may be taken. The deceased respondent No. 1 (landlord) did not take any action for a longdrawn period after the said decision which was rendered on 19th October, 1959. He, however, instituted tenancy case No. 2/1987 under Section 32P of the BT&AL Act for restoration of possession on the ground that he was entitled to get back the possession in as much as the tenant was having more land than permissible under the Ceiling Act. The application was resisted by the original petitioners on the ground that the Ceiling Act was amended and the standard area prescribed as on the date of such application filed by the deceased respondent No. 1 was of 60 acres which was previously of 48 acres and as such, the tenant could not be regarded as holder of excess land more than the standard unit prescribed under the Ceiling Act. The original petitioners submitted that after 28 years of the previous direction to initiate proceedings under Section 32P of the BT&AL Act, such application filed by the deceased respondent No. 1 (landlord) was not maintainable and was barred by limitation. The petitioners further contended that the landlord was not residing in the village and was not an agriculturist. They submitted that the landlord was ineligible to claim restoration of the lands in question because he had changed the vocation and was employed as a servant at another place. Consequently, the original petitioners urged for dismissal of the proceedings which were initiated by the deceased respondent No. 1 (landlord).

(3.) The Tahsildar carried out certain enquiry. The Tahsildar noticed that the original order issued in the previous tenancy proceedings No. 19/1959 initiated by deceased Shripati Kanhu Bankar was not placed on record and, therefore, it was difficult to execute such order. The Tahsildar further held that due to increase in the limit of standard holdings under the Ceiling Act, the tenants i.e. petitioners could not be regarded as surplus land holders and were not proved to be ineligible to continue their possession. The Tahsildar further took notice of the fact that the petitioners (tenants) had submitted the return under the Ceiling Act in Format No. XII and the same was approved by the competent authority. Therefore, they were not held as holders of surplus lands and as such, as on the date of application, it was not proved that they were having the land in excess of the limit provided under the Ceiling Act and as such, the restoration under Section 32P of the BT&AL Act was not legally permissible. The Tahsildar further held that the application under Section 32P was barred by limitation because it was filed after 28 years of earlier proceedings. It was also held that the deceased respondent No. 1 was not eligible to claim restoration because he had left the occupation as an agriculturist. In keeping with such findings, the learned Tahsildar dismissed the application of the deceased respondent No. 1 and further directed to initiate proceedings under Section 32G of the BT&AL Act vide order dated 30121987. The respondents No. 1 and 2 challenged the said order of the learned Tahsildar by filing T.N.C. appeal No. 4/1988. Their appeal was allowed. The learned SubDivisional Officer held that the proceedings under Section 32P were initiated by way of execution of the previous order because the tenant was found ineligible to purchase the tenanted land under Section 32G of the BT&AL Act. The learned Sub Divisional Officer held that the purchase had become ineffective and, therefore, the land could be restored in favour of the landlord. The judgement and order rendered by the learned SubDivisional Officer was challenged by filing revision application No. 4/1989 by the original petitioners. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissed the revision application. Hence, the petition.