VAJINATH KARPURE Vs. MAHADEO MARUTI MOTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner assails the judgment passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 3rd August, 1990, thereby dismissing the revision filed by the present petitioner against the order passed by the Deputy Collector (Land Reform), Osmanabad dated 5th September, 1989 who had allowed the appeal filed by the present respondents by setting aside the judgment and Order of the Additional Tahasildar, Bhoom dated 8th February, 1988.

(2.) The present respondent has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 89 of 1978 for perpetual injunction, in which the present petitioner's are party defendants. The present respondents claim to be the tenants of the suit land Survey Nos. 114/A and 115/A situated at Anjansawada, Tq. Bhoom. The present petitioners denied the tenancy, as claimed by the respondents in the said suit. As such the Civil Judge Junior Division, Bhoom referred the said issue to the tenancy Court for adjudication as per the provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter referred as Tenancy Act"). The present respondents had also independently filed an application under section 8 of the Tenancy Act for declaring him as a tenant.

(3.) The Tahasildar clubbed both the proceedings i.e. the proceedings initiated by the present respondents under section 8 of the Tenancy Act, for declaring it as a tenant and the proceedings pursuant to the issue oftenancy being referred by the Civil Court. Initially, the Tahasildar, allowed the application of the present respondent declaring him as a tenant. The present petitioner preferred an appeal, the Deputy Collector (Land Reform) remanded the matter back to the Tahasildar, for deciding the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to adduce evidence to the parties. After remand the Tahasildar, vide its judgment dated 6th February, 1988 dismissed the claim of tenancy of the present respondents. The Deputy Collector (Land Reform), Osmanabad in the appeal preferred by the present respondent against the order of Tahasildar, allowed the appeal in absence of the appellant. The present petitioner, thereafter filed a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, at Aurangabad, who dismissed the said revision. The said order assailed before this Court.