ABDUL KARIM PIRSAHEB SHEIKH Vs. LAXMAN BAPU BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three Authorities below have held that although the petitioner Abdul Karim Peersaheb Shaikh is an agriculturist from Karnataka State, however he will not be deemed to be an agriculturist within the State of Maharashtra unless he personally cultivates the agricultural land in the Stale of Maharashtra. This view of the Authorities below is challenged in this Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Few facts leading to this application are as under:-

(2.) In the first instance, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land Survey No. 64, from village Bale, Taluka North Sholapur, on Feb. 3, 1967 for a consideration of Rupees 21,500/- and Rs. 2,500/- were paid by the petitioner by way of art earnest. The petitioner had given a notice on June 16, 1967 to sell the land in his favour to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Further, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to sell the land to respondent Mo. 4 for an amount of Rs. 28,000/-. It is, therefore, a Special C. Suit No. 8 of 1970 was filed for specific performance of the contract and for actual possession of the land to him. In the suit itself a plea was taken that the petitioner is not an agriculturist and therefore, there could not be sale in favour of the petitioner. On the basis of the said plea and in view of the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) a reference was made to the Tenancy Authorities under Section 85-A of the Tenancy Act.

(3.) The petitioner led the evidence to prove that he is an agriculturist before the Tahsildar, North-Sholapur. The petitioner brought on the record a rent-note dated May 18, 1972 in respect of the land held by the petitioner's joint family at Shindagi (Karnatak State). He has also produced some evidence to show that he has cultivated the land in the Maharashtra State. However, that evidence was not believed by the learned Tahsildar. The learned Tahsildar, on careful consideration of the evidence on record observed :--