HARUBAI RAMA CHAVAN Vs. KRISHNA BIDESH SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Rule, returnable forthwith with consent of the parties. The land Survey No. 164/1 of Village Ranjani, Taluka Kavthe Mahankal was owned by Krishna Bidesh Suryavanshi. The present petitioner Rama Mhasu Chavan claims that he was a tenant on the land and was in possession on the appointed day. On the basis of this contention, he initiated proceedings under section 32 (1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act") and in the said proceedings an order was passed in favour of the tenant. However, an appeal was filed, being Tenancy Appeal No. 2 of 1991, before the Deputy Collector, Sangli who by his order dated 9-10-1991 allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahasildar and directed that the land be restored in possession of the appellant-landlord. Against that order, the present petitioners Rama Mhasu Chavan filed revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Kolhapur. That revision application was also dismissed on 12-7-1999. Hence the present proceedings have been filed.

(2.) A very short point arises in this matter as to whether the provisions of section 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act are governed by the provisions of section 32-F of the Tenancy Act. It is worth noting that in the year 1974, the Additional Tahasildar, Kavathe Mahankal, by his order dated 30-11-1974, directed that the possession of the land be given to the tenant Rama Mhasu Chavan. That order was reconsidered by the Additional Tahasildar, Kavathe Mahankal and as per his order dated 30-11-1984, he held that the landlord was permanently mentally disabled and the question of restoration of the suit land to the tenant did not arise. He further observed that the tenant had a remedy under section 32-F read with section 29 of the Tenancy Act. He, therefore, directed that the proceedings be kept pending till the landlord ceases the disability as provided under section 32-F of the Tenancy Act. This order was not challenged by the tenant-Rama Mhasu Chavan, but then he started fresh proceeding under section 32 (1b) of the Tenancy Act and thereafter the order regarding restoration of possession to the tenant was passed. The learned Deputy Collector, Sangli as well as the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur have set aside that order after considering all these circumstances.

(3.) IT also appears that a suit was filed before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli and in that suit also the order passed by the Tahasildar for restoration of possession to the tenant was set aside by the Civil Court, but it is not necessary for the purpose of this proceedings to go into the decision given by the Civil Court because basically here the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 12-7-1999 is challenged.