GANGYYA Vs. GANGADHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-tenant has questioned the order of the Maharashra Revenue Tribunal dated 29.12.1989 delivered in Revision. The office of M.R.T. has registered proceedings as Appeal No. 14-A.87.P. In view of the short contentions raised before this Court, it is not necessary to refer to the facts at length.

(2.) Advocate Shri Naik for the Petitioner has contended that the status as protected tenant is not in dispute and hence rejection of application filed under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 ( For short, hereinafter referred as 'Hyderabad Act') only on the ground that he did not approach the competent authority under Section 32 for restoration of possession, is arbitrary and unwarranted. According to the learned Counsel, it constitutes failure to exercise jurisdiction.

(3.) Advocate Salunke for Respondent No. 1 has briefly invited my attention to the previous history. He contends that the Petitioner was dispossessed allegedly before 1954 and the Respondent No. 1 purchased the land in dispute in 1966, therefore, the Respondent No. 1 never dispossessed Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 has thereafter transferred the land to his son and taking advantage of that event, the proceedings under Section 98 of the Hyderabad Act came to be filed. Learned Counsel states that Section 98 is, therefore, rightly held to be not applicable in such contingency. According to him, Section 32 stipulates limitation of two years for a person like Petitioner to move competent authority for restoration of possession. Though Section 98 expressly does not provide for limitation, application thereunder needs to be moved within a reasonable time, that too against the person who has dispossessed the Petitioner.