BHIKUBAI BHIMA GAIDHANE Vs. KHANDU DAJI PAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner-landlord is the owner of S. No. 270/1-A-1-B admeasuring 30 gunthas assessed at 12 paise. The lands are situate in village Palse in district Nasik. The proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter called "the Tenancy Act") were instituted in the year 1960. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal wanted to determine the price of land to be paid by the respondent. The respondent in those proceedings gave a statement stating that he was not in possession of the land on 1-4-1957 and that he was also not a tenant of the said land at that time. In consequence of that statement the Mamlatdar by his order dated 27-10-1960 dropped the proceedings. Later on the respondent filed an appeal against this order stating that there was some misunderstanding on his part while giving the statement. While the appeal was pending before the Deputy Collector the respondent is alleged to have taken forcible possession of the suit land in the year 1961-62. The Deputy Collector confirmed the order of the Mamlatdar on 27-11-1963 and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) THE Mamlatdar also started proceedings in 1964 under Section 32-B of the Tenancy Act and awarded possession to the petitioner on 1-10-1964. The respondent filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, but the Collector held that this appeal was not competent because he was not a tenant of the land. The petitioner now says that the respondent is in unauthorised possession of the land.

(3.) AS the respondent was in unauthorised possession of the land the petitioner instituted the proceedings under Section 84 of the Tenancy Act for summary eviction and for possession of the land, before the Collector. The Collector ordered eviction of the respondent in view of the decision in the proceedings under Sections 32-G and 32-B of the Tenancy Act, which had taken place before. The respondent filed a revision application before the Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the summary eviction of the respondent was unjustified as he was a tenant of the land and he had a right to re-enter the land. This order of revision is now sought to be set aside by the petitioner.