KALU DHONDI JADHAV Vs. PANDHARINATH BHIWA GUNJAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MS . Smita Mane for the Petitioner. The respondent though has been served, is absent. None present for him. Therefore, he has been treated ex-parte and the present writ petition is being heard and decided finally as it pertains to the year 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner Kalu Dhondi Jadhav resident of Manmad, District Nasik is claiming to be the landlord of Gat No.21 (Survey No.9) admeasuring about 18 Acres and 4 Gunthas, Pot Kharaba 1 acre and 19 Gunthas, total area 19 Acres and 23 Ares situated in village Nanhave, Taluka Chandwad, District Nasik. The respondent Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal is claiming to be tenant of it and claims that his father was the tenant of the said land and he happens to be in possession of the said land since 1948-49 and was cultivating the said land from the year 1974. It appears from the record that proceedings were initiated in view of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act" for convenience). The record also shows that two suits were filed in the Civil Court in respect of the said land. The record further shows that the possession was handed over by the Civil Court through bailiff by executing the decree which was passed in favour of the present petitioner. This is the second round of the litigation so far as the revenue courts are concerned.

(3.) BY virtue of this order, the second round started. On 7.6.1984 Kalu Dhondi Jadhav submitted an application before the Tehsildar and ALT, Chandwad requesting him to issue summonses to the witnesses whom he wanted to examine. There were 3-4 witnesses. Summons were issued and next date was fixed to be 14.6.1984. On the said date the Tehsildar and ALT, Chandwad observed that the witnesses did not turn up to his Court for giving evidence in support of the case of Kalu Dhondi Jadhav and, therefore, he closed his right of adducing the evidence and passed the judgment and order against him declaring the respondent Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal to be the lawful tenant of the said land. The present petitioner filed an appeal against it which was dismissed by S.D.O. holding that the present petitioner did not adduce the evidence though opportunity was given to him. By observing so, he dismissed the contention raised by the present petitioner that no opportunity was given to him for adducing evidence in support of his case. S.D.O. held that the evidence on record was sufficient enough to establish that Pandharinath Bhiwa Gunjal was the lawful tenant of the said land. The same view was taken by M.R.T. and the judgment and order passed by Tehsildar and ALT, Chandwad was confirmed.