TRIMBAK PURSHOTTAM PATIL Vs. YASHODABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent is the tenure-holder of fields survey Nos. 8/6, 69/1a and 69/1b, total area 16 acres 29 gunthas of mouza Isapur, taluq Akot, district Akola. She gave a notice to the petitioner under Section 38 (1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, (hereinafter called the Tenancy Act), on 10-2-1961 alleging that the petitioner Is her tenant and she wants the aforesaid lands bona fide for her personal cultivation. This notice was followed by an application on 23-3-1961 under Section 36 (2) read with Section 38 (1) of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) EVIDENCE was led in the case and the application was rejected by the Naib Tahsildar on merits holding that her need is not bona fide. In appeal, the order of the Naib Tahsildar was set aside by the Special Deputy Collector by his order dated 22-9-1962 and the case was remanded for fresh trial. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Naib Tahsildar on remand, the respondent withdrew her application for resumption on 6-11-1962 without seeking permission of the Court to withdraw the same. She had made an application for that purpose to the Naib Tahsildar alleging certain facts why she was withdrawing the resumption proceedings. On her application the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar dropped the proceedings without reserving any opportunity to the respondent to file a fresh application for resumption of the said fields from the petitioner.

(3.) THE respondent then served the petitioner with a fresh notice dated 16-10-1966 under Section 38 (1) of the Tenancy Act. This notice was again followed by another application under Section 36 (2) read with Section 38 (1) of the Tenancy Act on 7-1-1967 for resumption of the same fields again from the same tenant. This application was also contested by the tenant who contested the application on merits as well as on the ground that the previous proceedings or the decision of the Naib Tahsildar operated as res judicata. The Naib Tahsildar held that the respondent having withdrawn the earlier proceedings was not entitled to claim very same lands on the same grounds. In a subsequent proceedings, according to him, she was estopped from claiming the same. The Naib Tahsildar also held that the respondent did not require the land for bona fide personal cultivation. The application of the respondent was thus rejected.