DHANAPPA BALAPPA DHANAPPA SAWALE Vs. GURULINGESHWAR DEVASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel for Respondent.

(2.) Petitioners are challenging the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 26/3/1987. By the said order, the revision application was dismissed and the order passed by the said Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj Division was confirmed.

(3.) Brief facts are that the Petitioner claimed to be tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey Nos. 292 and 293 admeasuring 19 Acres 9 Gunthas and 23 Acres 11 Gunthas. Petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 32G before the Agricultural Land Tribunal in 1964. However, the Tribunal, after inquiry was made, came to the conclusion that the lands in question were Deosthan Inam lands and, therefore, by order dated 10/02/1964 dismissed the said application and dropped the proceedings under Section 32G.Thereafter, it appears that these lands were re-granted in favour of the Respondent and, therefore, again, proceedings under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short "BT & AL Act) were initiated. The Additional Tahasildar & Agricultural Lands Tribunal was pleased to allow the application and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was entitled to exercise his right of purchase since the Deosthan lands were re-granted to the landlord. He, therefore fixed the purchase price of the said lands. He further observed that after the lands were re-granted to the landlord, he neither obtained necessary certificate under Section 88B of the BT & AL Act nor started any proceedings for taking over possession from him and, therefore, tenant was entitled to exercise his right of purchase under Section 32G. Thereafter, appeal was preferred by the Respondent. The appeal was allowed and the order of ALT was set aside. The Sub-Divisional Officer held that since the proceedings under Section 32G were initially concluded in the year 1964 on the ground that the said lands were Deosthan lands and also a trust property and the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R of BT & AL Act were not applicable to the said lands, the said proceedings were dropped and that the proceedings which were again initiated by the tenant after 16 years were barred by the principle of resjudicata. He also held that in 7 x 12 extract of the suit lands the suit lands are shown to be Deosthan lands and, therefore, proceedings under Section 32G were not maintainable. He also held from the evidence on record that the suit lands were public trust property and on that ground also the provisions of Sections 32 to 32-R of the BT & AL Act were not applicable. Revision Application was preferred by the tenant - Petitioner herein before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp at Kolhapur. The MRT also came to the conclusion that the second proceedings which were initiated under Section 32G were barred by principle of resjudicata and it further held that since there was documentary evidence on record to show that it was a trust property, in view of provisions of Section 88B the provisions of Section 32 to 32R were not applicable.