LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-34

DATTATRAYA ANANT WAKADE Vs. RANGRAO SULTANJI GHORPADE

Decided On October 05, 2002
DATTATRAYA ANANT WAKADE Appellant
V/S
RANGRAO SULTANJI GHORPADE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 15-3-1990 in Application No. MRT/ns/vi/4. 88 (TNC. B. 260/88 ).

(2.) THE petitioners are landlords in respect of the land situated at Shirdhon, Taluka. Koregaon in Satara District. According to the petitioners the land held by the tenants on the Tiller's day (i. e. 1-4-1957) was in excess of the ceiling limit and therefore, the tenants were not entitled to purchase the subject land. That contention was accepted by the Additional Tahsildar and A. L. T. Koregaon by order dated 27th February, 1987. The tenants challenged that decision before the S. D. O. Koregaon by way of tenancy Appeal No. 26 of 1987. The Appellate Authority on the other hand held that the restriction of ceiling limit would not apply to purchase of land by the tenant on the Tiller's day as that is not required under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. In the circumstances, the appeal preferred by the respondents tenants was allowed and the first authority was directed to determine the purchase price in respect of the suit land so that the same can be paid by the tenants towards the purchase price of the suit land. The petitioners filed revision application before the Tribunal challenging the view taken by the Appellate Authority essentially contending that even in spite of the statutory purchase by the tenants on the Tiller's day under Section 32g, the tenant would be entitled to purchase only if his holding of other land as owner, does not exceed ceiling area. In other words, tenants would be entitled to purchase tenanted land only upto the ceiling area after calculating holding of the tenant of other land owned by him. The Tribunal, however, affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Court and dismissed the revision application.

(3.) TO my mind, the authorities below have clearly overlooked the mandate of Section 32a of the Act. Sections 32a and 32b read thus: