SHANKAR M PAWAR Vs. ANUSAYABAI ALIAS AMBABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocates for the parties. Perused the records.

(2.) THE dispute in the petition relates to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 105/3 now Gat No. 163 situated in the village Nandurkheda, taluka Raver, District Jalgaon. The land in question belongs to Govind Vinayak Matkari, Shankar Ramkrishna Dahale and Nilkanth s/o Ramchandra Dahale. Since 1951 the land was cultivated by one Mukund Pawar as the tenant thereof on payment of annual rent of Rs. 28/ -. Mukund Pawar expired in the year, 1956 leaving behind him five sons namely, Narayan, Pandu, Dattu, Chintaman and Shankar (petitioner herein) as his heirs and consequently, all the sons being major in age at the time of the death of Mukund, inherited the tenancy rights in the said land in equal shares. After the death of Mukund, one Sayabai w/o Bhaurao Awahane, mother of the respondents herein purchased the suit land by a registered sale deed dated 29th October, 1956 and on the same day, she was put in possession of the suit land. Sayabai continued to possess the suit land till her death which occurred on 16th October, 1980 and, thereafter, the suit land was possessed by the respondents as the lawful heirs of Sayabai. By notice dated 18th August, 1992 the petitioner called upon the respondents to restore the possession of the suit land to the petitioner in terms of section 32 (1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after called as "the said Act") and thereafter, filed an application under the said provision of law on 24th April, 1994. The same was registered as Tenancy Case No. 2/1994. After hearing the parties, the tahsildar by his order dated 4th November, 1997, directed the respondents to induct the petitioner in actual possession of the suit land. The respondents preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 2/98 which came to be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhusawal by his order dated 30th June, 1998. However, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 15th February, 1999 in Tenancy Revision Application No. 143/1998 set aside the orders of the tahsildar and S. D. O. and dismissed the application of the petitioner under section 32 (1-B) of the said Act. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) THE petitioners case is that undisputedly, the father of the petitioner was the lawful tenant in possession of the suit land since 1951 till his death which occurred in the year, 1956 and, therefore, he was in possession of the suit land as the lawful tenant thereof on 15th June, 1955 which is the appointed day under the said Act and hence, he was entitled for statutory protection under the provisions of the said Act. The petitioner being one of the sons of Mukund, he has lawfully inherited the fathers interest in the suit land and he being illegally dispossessed of the suit land from 29th October, 1956, he is entitled for restortation of possession thereof under section 32 (1-B) of the said Act. It is further case of the petitioner that no period of limitation has been prescribed for action under section 32 (1-B) and therefore, the theory of reasonable period cannot be imported in the matter of enforcement of right under the said provision of law in the absence of specific bar of limitation against the such remedy. The alleged surrender of possession of the suit land by Narayan, the eldest brother of the petitioner has neither been proved nor such surrender, even assuming that the land had been actually surrendered by Narayan, it is not binding upon the petitioner and other brothers as Narayan was never authorised to surrender the interest of the petitioner or other brothers in the suit land and, therefore, the possession of the suit land with the respondents is illegal and for all purposes, the respondents are not successors in interest of the land of the petitioner in relation the suit land.