VINAYAK RATNAGIRI GOSAVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th September, 1986 by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1986 and Judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub-Division, Rahuri in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal/11 /86 and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 7th June, 1991 in Case No. MRT.AH.X.-7/ 87(Tnc.B.286/87), Pune.

(2.) The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred an Appeal bearing No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub-Division. The Appellate Authority has held that though the uncle of the petitioner No. 1 was agriculturist he was not an agriculturist on the date when the petitioner No. 1 has purchased the said land. It has been further held that the evidence is not produced on record to show that the petitioner No. 1 is the member of the joint family. It has been further held that the land has been purchased, on behalf of the co-operative Society and the sale has taken place on 19th April, 1985 and the society has been registered on 30th December, 1985. Therefore, on the day when the land was purchased the society was not registered and, therefore, order passed by the Tenancy Awalkarkun was confirmed by the Appellate Authority and the appeal was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the findings reached by the Courts below that the petitioner No. 1 is not an agriculturist is perverse finding. In fact, petitioner No. 1 did produce on record the documents showing that his uncle is agriculturist and therefore, the petitioner is from agriculturist family and it cannot be said that petitioner No. 1 is not an agriculturist. It is further submitted that it has been held that the petitioner No. 2 is an agriculturist, therefore, assuming without admitting that the transaction in favour of the petitioner is bad, still petitioner No. 2 being an agriculturist can still persuade the non agricultural permission. It is further submitted that the land was purchased for proposed housing society for housing purpose of teachers belonging to reserve category and same society is registered on 30th December, 1985. The registration certificate of the said society was filed before the trial Court. The petitioner No. 1 purchased the suit property in the capacity of chief promoter of the proposed Rangnath Swami Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha, Chinch Vihire, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar and immediately after completion of necessary procedure under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, the said Co-operative Housing Society came, to be registered and suit property is being used for the purpose of said Co-operative Housing Society. It is further submitted that since the suit property was purchased by petitioner No. 1 in the capacity as Chief Promoter of the Housing society, in view of section 64-A of the said Act, sale transaction is exempted from the provisions of sections 63 and 64.Therefore, the Counsel for the petitioner submit that in the first instance the sufficient evidence was brought on record to show that the petitioner No. 1 is agriculturist and secondly, since the land was purchased for the Cooperative Housing society, the provision of sections 63 & 64 of the said Act have no application in the case of the sale transaction in the present case. The learned Counsel further submitted that the authorities below have taken hyper technical view in the matter that the Cooperative housing Society was not registered on the date of sale transaction ignoring that society was duly registered subsequently and to that effect, evidence was produced on record. Therefore, Counsel would submit that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.