HARIBHAU MADHUSUDAN KAKDE Vs. SHANKAR MARUTI HONKALAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEW facts needs to be stated for unfolding the matter. Shankar Maruti Honkalas was the owner of Gat No. 703 of village Puluj. Shri Ganpat Yadav, father of present respondent No. 2, was the tenant of the said land. In a proceeding initiated in view of section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act" for convenience) he was declared as purchaser by fixing the purchase price. He paid it and certificate in view of section 32-M was issued in his favour. On 26-2-1982 by a sale deed he sold an area admeasuring 1 Hectare 50 Ares to the present petitioner. The mutation entry bearing No. 662 was entered on 29-2-1982 in that context. An application was moved by the present respondent No. 1 to concerned Collector and the said application was treated as an application submitted in view of provisions of section 84-CC of the Bombay Tenancy Act. An enquiry was made and the said application was decided against the present petitioner. The present petitioner moved a petition before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pandharpur who decided it in favour of the present petitioner. The present respondent No. 1 moved a petition before M. R. T. which was heard and decided against the present petitioner and the order which was passed by the A. L. T. was upheld by setting aside the judgment and order which was passed by S. D. O. That is the cause for this petition.

(2.) MR. Godbole, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the M. R. T. misdirected itself in coming to the conclusion that as the parties did not have any right to move a petition for revising the order passed by A. L. T. S. D. O. could not have the jurisdiction and power to treat the appeal as suo motu revision and to decide it on merits and thereby to set aside the judgment and order which was passed by A. L. T. Mr. Godbole further submitted that the A. L. T. committed a gross error of law in treating the said application as an application in view of section 84-CC of the Bombay Tenancy Act and thereby landed in error in passing the judgment and order which was rightly set aside by the S. D. O. He submitted that the learned member of M. R. T. did not consider this important aspect of the matter and, therefore, landed in error of recording a judgment and order against the present petitioner. He submitted that that being an illegal order, this Court be pleased to quash it by issuing a writ of certiorari.

(3.) MR. Sunil Karandikar, Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1, vehemently submitted that the parties had no right to move a revision petition in such proceeding because section 76-A of the Bombay Tenancy Act stands involved. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of (Patel Chunilal v. Narayanrao), reported in 1966 Mh. L. J. 475 (S. C.) : Tenancy Law Reporter Vol. XIV-1966 page No. 49. He submitted that the judgment and order which has been passed by M. R. T. is correct, proper and consistent with the ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Patel Chunilal v. Narayanrao.