MALHARI AMRUTA SURNAR Vs. RANGANATH AMRUTA KACHAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Petition is to judgment and order dated 17.7.1992 rendered by learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurnagabad, in Revision Petition no. 106-B-91-P and to the judgment and order dated 27.6.1991 passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani in Tenancy Appeal no. 1981/TNC/A/48.

(2.) There is a checkered history to the tenancy litigation between the parties to the Petition. The period of litigation looms over a period of about 40 years. The petitioners are legal representatives of deceased Malhari Amruta Surnar. He was admittedly declared as a protected tenant of agricultural land bearing survey no.22, to the extent of 21 acres area, situated at village Makni under Gangakhed Tehsils as per provision of Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (For short

(3.) It appears that the learned Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by deceased landlord Rangnath and simultaneously upheld validity of declaration made under section 38E of the "H.T. and A.L. Act" in favour of deceased tenant Malhari. The Deputy Collector, therefore directed the Tahsildar to refer the case of wrong determination of distribution of the land survey no.22 and to request the S.L.D.T. to take action under section 46 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act. The said order rendered by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, on 31.12.1980 was challenged by deceased landlord Rangnath by filing Revision Petition. The revisional Tribunal i.e. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.), however, dismissed the Revision Petition on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The dismissal order was passed by the M.R.T. on 29.11.1983. Aggrieved by the orders of the M.R.T. and the Deputy Collector, deceased landlord Rangnath filed a Writ Petition in this Court. His Writ Petition no.753 of 1983 was partly allowed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 4.6.1990. The learned Single Judge of this Court directed the Deputy Collector to decide the appeal denovo having regard to explanation appended to section 38-E(1) of the H.T. and A.L. Act. The learned Single Judge observed that the Deputy Collector also shall consider the circumstance that an area of 4A and 21 G was allotted to the original tenant i.e. Malhari as landless person under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings Act).