JANKIBAI Vs. RANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this petition is whether a tenant of a widow who had exercised her right of resumption of land for personal cultivation under section 38(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, is entitled to become an owner under the provisions of section 49A during the lifetime of the widow or whether even in such a case the ownership cannot vest in him during the life-time of a widow in respect of the land remaining with him in view of the provisions of section 49A(3) of the Tenancy Act. The petitioner is the owner of field survey number 12, area 15 acres, 13 gunthas, situated at village Sagwan, taluq Chikhali, district Buldana. This field was cultivated by the respondent as a tenant. The petitioner had started proceedings under section 38(1) read with section 36 of the Tenancy Act against the respondent and in these proceedings the petitioner obtained possession of 10 acres 27 gunthas of land on 5-3-1965 and 5 acres 4 gunthas remained in possession of the respondent. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal took suo motu proceedings for transfer of statutory ownership with regard to the whole field on 24-3-1964. The tenant filed a statement before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he had cultivated field survey number 12, area 15 acres 13 gunthas, on 1-4-1961 and prior to that and even thereafter and that he was willing to pay the said price by instalments as may be fixed by the Lands Tribunal. In these proceedings later the respondent himself filed a copy of the possession receipt to show that 10 acres, 27 gunthas of land were resumed by the petitioner and he later restricted his claim to ownership only with regard to the remaining land. The petitioner raised an objection before the Lands Tribunal that since she was a widow and her successor had a right to recover possession from the tenant after her death, proceedings under section 46 of the Tenancy Act were not maintainable. The Lands Tribunal recorded the statement of the tenant and held that the tenant was entitled to purchase the land remaining with him and fixed Rs. 382-90 as purchase price of the field.

(2.) The petitioner appealed against this order. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Buldana, who decided the appeal held that since the petitioner had already exercised her right of resumption for personal cultivation and obtained possession there could be no postponement of the respondent's right to purchase the land. He, therefore, rejected the appeal.

(3.) The petitioner then filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which also has been rejected. The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging these orders.