ANANDA SAKHARAM PADALKAR Vs. SACHIN MARUTI KOLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition fled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 12th March 2018 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bench at Pune (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in Revision Application No.SS/II/2/2015 fled under the provisions of Section 76 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The order dated 12th March 2018, inter aila, afrms and confrms the judgment and order dated 16th September 2013 passed by the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirala in proceedings bearing No.32G/Suit No.3/2010 under the provisions of Section 32-O of the Act and judgment and order dated 23rd January 2015 passed by the Sub-Divisional Ofcer, Walva Division at Islampur in Appeal proceedings bearing No.04 of 2013 under the provisions of Section 74 of the Act. The aforesaid three proceedings have been fled before the statutory authorities by the petitioner and the petitioner is faced with three concurrent orders passed under the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The relevant facts pertaining to the lis between the parties is stated at the outset. The disputed land between the petitioner and respondents is land bearing Survey No.331/9 (old Survey No.582/9) admeasuring H.00.75R, P.K.0.02 assessed at Rs.2.06 situated at village Mangale, Tal. Shirala (hereinafter referred to as "the suit land"). This suit land was originally owned by the predecessor of respondents namely one Valmiki Krishna Koli. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the present landlords of the suit land to the extent of 50% of the share holding therein.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the suit land was let out to the petitioner's father namely Shri Sakharam Rama Padalkar for jirayat crops by an agreement and receipt dated 14th June 1950 by the predecessor in title of the respondents. It is the further case of the petitioner that since 1950 the suit land was cultivated by the petitioner's father until his demise and thereafter it is the petitioner who is cultivating the suit land as tenant thereof.