PANDHARI RAMJI TIMADE Vs. JAGDAMBA DEVI DEOSTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition Challenges the order dated 17-6-1970 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in Revenue revision No. Ten-A-478 of 1969. The facts leading to this petition are briefly these: The respondent No. 1 Jagdamba Devi Deosthan is the landholder of field Survey No. 6, area 7. 17 acres, assessment Rs. 17/- and Survey No. 1/3, area 1. 17 acres, assessment Rs. 3-31, both situated at mouza Kuria, tahsil Hinganghat, district Wardha. the petitioners claim to be the tenants of the aforesaid fields. According to the petitioner, the fields were leased out to the petitioners or their predecessors-in-title in the year 1955-56 and they continued to be in possession of those fields in the year 1956-57 and 1957-58. The respondent No. 1 however, challenged the claim of the petitoners of their being tenants of the said fields. The petitioners, therefore, filed on 3-4-1961 an application purporting to be under Section 100 (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Tenancy Act, before the Tahsildar for a declaration that they are the tenants of the aforesaid fields and the name of the respondent No. 2 be deleted from the Khasras. By order dated 16-10-1961 this application was dismissed by the Naib Tahsildar. The Special Deputy Collector, however, set aside that order and allowed the appeal by his order dated 16-7-1962. the matter was further taken to the Revenue Tribunal and by order dated 20-6-1963, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribual set aside both these orders and remanded the case to the naib Tahsildar.

(2.) WHILE the proceedings were pending before the Naib Tahsildar after remand, Section 107 of the Tenancy Act was amended by inserting CI. (a-1) at the top in Section 107 (1) of the Tenancy Act by which in the list of appellate orders, an order under Section 6 was inserted by Maharashytra Act No. 17 of 1966. This amendment came into effect from 2-6-1966.

(3.) THE naib Tahsildar who inquired into the application after remand rejected the application by his order dated 24-1-1967 holding that the petitioners were not the tenants of the fields in question. On appeal by the petitioners, the order of the naib Tahsildar was set aside by the Special Deputy Collector by his order dated 18-2-1969 holding that the petitioners were the tenants. This order was then challenged by the respondent No. 1 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribual who by his order dated 17-6-1970 set aside the order of the Deputy Collector holding that the appeal before him was not competent and remanded the case to him with the observation that the order of the naib Tahsildar could be revised under Section 110 of the Tenancy Act and left it to the Special Deputy Collector to consider whether the appeal memorandium could be treated as a revision application and if he should decide to treat the appeal memorandum as a revision petition, then to decide that revision on merits. In the view it took the merits of the case. this order has been challenged by the petitioners who question. It is their contention that in view of the amendment to S. 107 (1) of the Tenancy Act, an appeal against the order of the Naib tahsildar to the Special Deputy Collector was competent since the cause of action for the appeal arose on 24-1-1967 and, therefore, the Revenue Tribunal should have decided the revision application in their favour on merits and ought not to have remanded the same to the deputy Collector for considering whether the appeal memorandum should be treated as a revision appliciation.