MESAJI Vs. RAMCHANDRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner-original tenant has questioned the judgment dated 15.09.1999 delivered by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad in Appeal under Section 90 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. (Hereinafter referred to as "1950 Act").

(2.) The Petitioner filed application on 12.01.1988 against the Respondent No. 1 and other Respondents for recovery of possession of land survey No. 9/A admeasuring 10 Acres 14 Gunthas i.e. 4 H 18 R and also survey No. 9/2 admeasuring 3 H 53 R under Section 98 of the above mentioned 1950 Act. The lands are situated in village Khandarban, Tq. Basmath, Dist. Hingoli (earlier Dist. Parbhani). He contended that land survey No. 9/A was owned by one Gyanoba and survey No. 9/2 was owned by Digambar. Gyanoba expired in 1990-91 and Respondent No. 1-Ramchandra purchased land gut No. 9/A by registered sale deed dated 10.10.1974. Similarly, Respondent No. 2-Ashok purchased land survey No. 9/2 from Digambar. The Petitioner pointed out that his father Laxya was recorded as protected tenant over these lands since the year 1950 and after death of Laxya, he inherited those rights. He contended that he was dispossessed from survey No. 9/A by Respondent No. 1-Ramchandra along with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in July of 1978-79. He further pointed out that his name was removed from the possession column in 7/12 extracts by Tahsildar under mutation entry No. 124 on 05.09.1974 without any notice. Original owner Gyanoba has not made any offer to Petitioner/ his father before sale of land survey No. 9/A to Ramchandra. It was therefore contended that possession of Respondents over the said lands was unauthorised and illegal. Ramchandra and other Respondents came out with a defence that Petitioner being legal heirs of Laxya left land survey Nos. 9/A and 9/2 on his own accord between the year 1959-60 and his name was removed from column of cultivation in the year 1960-61. The alleged protected tenant according to them lost possession in the year 1959-60 and hence, application as filed in the year 1988 was not tenable under Section 32(1) of the 1950 Act. They pointed out that application under Section 32(1) ought to have been moved within two years and application under Section 98 therefore could not have been filed. Ramchandra stated that he purchased land survey No. 9/A on 10.10.1974 and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pointed out that they purchased land survey No. 9/2 on 29.03.1969. Accordingly, they also pointed out consequential mutation entries.

(3.) Application under Section 98 was considered by the Deputy Collector, Parbhani and vide order dated 22.02.1994, same was allowed. The possession of lands was directed to be delivered to him. This order was then questioned in appeal under Section 90 as mentioned above which came to be registered as Tenancy 13/A/94/P on the file of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has vide judgment dated 15.09.1999 allowed that appeal filed by Respondent No. 1-Ramchandra.