BHAURAO SALUBA EKANDE Vs. PUNJABRAO RANGRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad on 19th February, 1992. The Petitioners filed R.C.S. No. 63/1977 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Ambad against the Respondents for permanent injunction. The injunction was sought against the interference by the Respondents in the rights of the Petitioner in using well water. In the said suit, issue was framed whether the Petitioner No. 1 had become the owner of the said well under the provisions of Section 38E of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act. Reference was made Under Section 99A of the Tenancy Act to the Tahsilder for deciding the said issue. Additional Tahsildar decided the issue against the Petitioners. The Petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Collector. The Deputy Collector upheld the order of Additional Tahsildar. The revision was filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. Said revision was allowed and matter was remanded back to the Deputy Collector for fresh decision. On remand Deputy Collector again negatives the contention of the Petitioners by upholding the order of Additional Tahsildar. The Petitioner again challenged the same order before the M. R. T., Aurangabad by way of filing revision. Same revision also came to be dismissed by confirming the orders of the authorities below. Hence this petition. The counsel for the Petitioners invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition and in particular provisions of Section 2(j) of the Act read with Section 38 of the Tenancy Act and submitted that, while considering the claim of the Petitioners, the authorities have not followed the legal provisions in its proper perspective. Therefore, the counsel would submit that, the petition may be allowed.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that, two authorities on appreciation of facts held that so far area under dispute is concerned, the Petitioners were never declared as protected tenant. According to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, there are concurrent findings of fact. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the concurrent findings of fact.

(3.) I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the grounds in the writ petition and also upon hearing the counsel for the Petitioners, I do not think that case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment of the M. R. T. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad has discussed in detail in Para 6 about claim of the Petitioners. The M. R. T. has discussed the share of each landholder in land in dispute i.e. Survey No. 58/1, 58/2 and 58/3. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also discussed about 7/12 extracts and reached to the conclusion that the submissions of the Petitioners that, they have been declared owner to the extent of 5/4 share in the well belonging to Dattaraj S/o Bhikaji is not correct, is only in respect of land Sy. No. 58/2 admeasuring 3 Acre 4 Guntha owned by Dattaraj S/o Bhikaji and not in respect of share of Dattaraj S/o Bhikaji in the common well situated in Survey No. 58/3.