SADASHIV MAHADEO KUMBHAR Vs. BALKRISHNA BHIKAJI WALIMBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order, dated 11-6-1987 passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in the matter of MRT-NS-VII-10/86 (TNC. B 23/85), Pune whereby the learned member confirmed the order passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara in Tenancy Appeal No. 34/2982 by holding that in view of the provisions of section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 the landlord is also entitled to move an application for reviewing the order passed by the Tribunal in view of section 32-G more particularly sub-section (3) of B. T. and A. L. Act.

(2.) THE facts need to be stated for unfolding the matter. Proceedings under section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Act for convenience) started in respect of Suit Survey No. 121/3, 121/4 of Village Kumte, Taluka Satara, District Satara before Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. who passed his final order in those proceedings on 30th of December, 1981 and decided that the suit land was to be sold to the tenant Sadashiv Mahadev Kumbhar after fixing the purchase price of Rs. 2900/ -. On the date of said proceeding the landlord Balkrishan Bhikji Walimbe remained absent and hence enquiry was held treating him as ex parte. On getting the knowledge of the said order passed against him the landlord Walimbe applied to the Additional Tahasildar on 1-2-1982 averring that he could not remain present on the said date of inquiry as he was ill. He therefore, requested A. L. T. to review the order dated 30-12-1981 passed by him in proceeding under section 32-G of the Act. Said application was granted by Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T. , Satara by his order dated 8-2-1982. The tenant challenged the said judgment and order by preferring appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, Satara, by his order dated 29-3-1985 dismissed the said appeal by holding that the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar A. L. T. , Satara was correct and legal. S. D. O. Satara observed that on the date of the said enquiry the landlord was ill and he could not remain present before the said authority and in support of such contention raised by the landlord he had produced necessary medical certificate. He pointed out that, the said averment of illness was not challenged by the tenant before the Additional Tahasildar and A. L. T.

(3.) THE member of M. R. T. , dismissed the revision filed by the tenant, by holding that the provisions of section 32-G were not preventing such a review application being filed, being heard and being decided by the concerned Court.