(1.) A principal contention raised in these two Special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is as to whether the notification, dated February 14, 1958 issued by the State Government while exercising powers conferred under sub-section (3) of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Bombay Tenancy Act") would apply, or whether the amended Notification issued by the State Government under the said section, dated October 8, 1969 would apply to the facts of the present case and if the amended notification is to apply to the facts or this case, then as to whether the holding of the lessor is to be considered by exclusion of the lands sought to be resumed or even the lands sought to be resumed is also to be taken into consideration while determining the economic holding of such landlord.
(2.) In these two Special Civil Applications the petitioner are true brothers. They separately hold the lands, so far as Survey No. 1264/1 is concerned, petitioner Raghunath is the lower and the other petitioner Kishor is the owner of Survey No. 264/2, both admeasuring identically 4-H. 74 acres situated at village Rahata, in Kopargaon taluka of Ahmadnagar district. It is an admitted fact that both the petitioners do not possess any other land except the suit lands. It is also an admitted fact that these two lands were lead out to the tenant-respondent for sugar-cane cultivation, and the said lands are perennially irrigated by canal water and accordingly attracted the provisions of section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act.
(3.) Section 43-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act lays down that certain provision of the Bombay Tenancy Act would not apply to the lands which are leased for sugar cane cultivation. Sections 31 to 31-D (both inclusive). Section 32 to 32-R (both inclusive) and sections 33-A, 33-B and 33-C have not been made applicable to the lands which fall within the ambit of section 43-A of the Act.