BALU HRIPATI PATIL Vs. BANDU TATOBA CHINCHWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of interpretation of section 32 (1 B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, arises in this petition.

(2.) The facts leading to the dispute are these :-

(3.) In the course of enquiry, the Special Tahsildar raised three issues before him, viz. whether tenant Bandu was in possession on the appointed day i. e. June 15, 1955 and whether he was illegally dispossessed before the Tillers' day viz. April 1, 1957. Second issue framed was whether the land was in possession of the landlords Balu Shripati and Nana Dada, and the third was whether the land has been put to non-agricultural use. In the issues framed by the Tahsildar, the name of Balu does not appear. It appears at some places in the Record and the judgment. The subject matter of the proceedings is shown as half portion of Survey No. 405 /l and it is not clear therefore whether the inquiry related to whole of the land or part. The orders direct possession of only half portion of Survey No. 405 /1. It is not clear as to how this reference to half portion of the land has occurred inasmuch as the name of tenant appeared to the entire Survey No. 405/1 admeasuring 8 acres 17 gunthas. In view of the order I am passing in this case, this error and misconception is however of limited consequence.