NIMBADAS Vs. RAMKRUSHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge order dated 29th October, 2005 rendered by the Divisional Commissioner, Nasik in Tenancy Revision Application No. 32/2003 as well as order dated 30th January, 2003 rendered by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon in Tenancy Appeal No. 2/2003. The Divisional Commissioner confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional Officer whereby the Tenancy Appeal was allowed and the application of the respondent No. 1 for restoration of the half portion of the land in question was allowed.

(2.) The few facts giving rise to the tenancy litigation and the present petition may be stated in the following way Original Survey No. 446/2 (now Gat No. 1475), admeasuring 00 Hectors 9.1/2 Ares, situated at village Asoda, Taluka and District Jalgaon, is the land in question. Originally, the said land was held by one Subba Girdhar Jagtap. He was the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners. He had leased out the said land to Sampat Ramu Narkhede, father of the respondent No.1, somewhere in the year 1938. Thus, father of the respondent No. 1 was the tenant in possession as on the Tiller's Day i.e. 1st April, 1957. In his lifetime, the landlord, namely, Subba Girdhar Jagtap had filed an application for possession of the land in question, on 1st April, 1956, on the ground that he required the same for personal cultivation. He had alleged that due to insufficient rental income, he wanted to cultivate the land in question. On his application, the tenancy case No. 101/1956-57 was initiated and the proceedings terminated in his favour since the Tahsildar - ALT (Agricultural Lands Tribunal) granted the application. Original tenant - Sampat preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 15/1957. That appeal was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer by an order dated 31st May, 1957. The Sub Divisional Officer was pleased to set aside the order of the Tahsildar-cum-ALT. The Sub-Divisional Officer (S.D.O.) held that the possession of the tenant shall not be disturbed. The landlord was dissatisfied with such order of the appellate authority and, therefore, had preferred Revision Application No. 1392/1959 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.). The Revision Application of the landlord i.e. Subba Jagtap was dismissed by the M.R.T. on 7th January, 1960. There is no dispute about the fact that the judgement of the M.R.T. was never challenged by the original landlord i.e. Subba Jagtap during his lifetime.

(3.) The petitioners filed an application under section 43A read with section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "the BT&AL Act") seeking restoration of the land in question. They asserted that they required the land for bonafide personal cultivation. They further asserted that the land was leased out for growing of fruits and the annual rent was fixed at Rs. 600/- p.a., which was grossly inadequate for their livelihood. They contended that they were entitled to recover possession of the said land in view of the provisions of Section 43-A read with section 29 of the BT&AL Act in as much as the tenancy could not be created in respect of the fruit growing land. The Tahsildar - A.L.T. partly allowed the application of the petitioners on 30th August, 1976. It was directed that possession of half of the land in question, to the extent of 2 acres 11.5 gunthas, shall be restored to them. That order of the Tahsildar - ALT was challenged by way of appeal No. 7/1977 preferred by the respondent No. 1. The appeal was dismissed by the leave reserved Deputy Collector on 19th March, 1979. Thereafter, possession to the extent of half of the land in question was restored in favour of the petitioners. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed application No. 1/2000 for possession of the land in question alongwith fixation of the purchase price under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. That application was dismissed by the Tahsildar - ALT by order dated 13th November, 2001. The respondent No. 1 (tenant) preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer (S.D.O.), Jalgaon vide the appeal No. 2/2003. By order dated 31st January, 2003, the S.D.O. allowed that appeal and was pleased to set aside the order of the Tahsildar - ALT. The S.D.O. allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 and ordered that half of the land in question, of which the possession was restored to the petitioners, shall be handed over to the respondent No. 1. The S.D.O. further remanded the matter to the Tahsildar - ALT for fixation of the purchase price of the entire land in question under section 32G of the BT&AL Act. Aggrieved by such judgement and order of the appellate authority i.e. the S.D.O., the petitioners preferred Revision Application No. 32/2003. By the impugned judgement and order, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Nasik dismissed the Revision Application on 29th October, 2005 and thereby confirmed the appellate order. Hence, the petition.