MARUTI PIRAJI GITE Vs. BHAURAO YADAVRAO SANAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Confusion worst confounded is the characteristic of this proceeding andl I am constrained to obseive that not only the learned Executive Magistrate who was in-charge thereof but even the learned Additional Sessions Judge has contributed to this confusion and the proceedings and records depict not only an unsatisfactory but almost a lamentable picture. All these characteristic features which are completely enveloped in the utmost chaos have left no choice but to quash the proceedings and to start afresh from the scratch within the permissible limits.

(2.) The lands in quastion bear Survey Nos. 302, 304 and 306 situate in the village Yellamghat in Beed District. The petitioners who formed the first party in the original proceeding had moved the concerned Police Officer for, initiating a proceeding under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procediure, though they had contended that they have been in possession of the entire extent of the Survey Nos. not only on that day but for years together and thus certainly two months prior to the date of the application. They claimed inter alia that they had taken these lands on lease from one Shivling Shankar Teli and are in possession thereof since then and they are protected tenants. According to them, they had purchased the half portion of these Survey Nos. from Indirabai, the widow of Shivling Teli, in the year 1960 for the consideration of Rs. 2,000 and a certificate under section 38-A of the Tenancy Act was issued in their favour. Thus they have become owners of half the portion and that is how they claim that they are in possession of the entire land in dual capacity as being the purchasers and the tenants.

(3.) The Police Officer concerned initiated the proceeding by submitting his report on 21st January. 1977 to the learned Executive Magistrate at Beed. The proceeding has thus commenced. Notices weres issued to the respondents herein who are the party No. 2 in the said proceeding. The respondents had a rival claim. According to them, they had purchased half of these Survey Nos. from one Vithabai, the sister of the deceased Shivling Teli in the year 1963 while the remaining half was purchased from Indirabai in the year 1966 and since this purchase they are in possession of the entire Survey Nos. According to them, the certificate obtained by the 1st party was an inconclusive one and did not confer any right or title in favour of the 1st party and they further contended that the 1st party had actually surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of the widow and the sister of the said Shivling Teli in the year 1961. The surrender was challenged on behalf of the 1st party but the same was rejected and ultimately confirmed.