VIVEK LAXMAN KULKARNI Vs. NAMDEO GIRDHAR WANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE land involved in these writ petitions is the same namely, land bearing Gat No. 178 admeasuring 8 acres 29 gunthas situated at village Rotwad, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as the said land ). The said land originally belonged to Ramchandra Kulkarni. His son Laxman is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 641/90 Vivek-son of Laxman Ramchandra Kulkarni is the writ petitioner in Writ Petition No. 168/89. Laxman Ramchandra Kulkarni is also the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4958/96. Writ Petition No. 168/89 arises out of an application made under section 43-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by Vivek through his Attorney and Father Laxman for fixation of rent of the said land. Apprehending that Vivek may not be held to be the landlord, his father Laxman Ramchandra Kulkarni also filed another application under section 43-B of the Act. Writ Petition No. 641/90 arises out of this application made by Laxman. The heirs of Giridhar Wani, who was the tenant, had filed an application under section 32-G of the Act for fixation of price of the said land. Writ Petition No. 4958/96 arises out of the said application made by the heirs of Giridhar Wani.

(2.) IT was alleged that there was a partition in the family and in the said partition, the said land bearing Gat No. 178 was allotted to the share of Vivek, who was a minor on 1-4-1957. It was, therefore, alleged that the tillers day was postponed. In the collateral proceedings, which were fought upto the High Court, it was held by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 167/69 that the alleged partition effected by Ramchandra Kulkarni allotting the said land to Vivek was not valid and was not in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

(3.) THE application made by Vivek under section 43-B of the Act was allowed by the Tahsildar. However, in the appeal against the said order of the Tahsildar, the Sub-Divisional Officer relying upon the judgment of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 167/69, held that Vivek was not the landlord. The said finding was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short M. R. T.) and the order of the M. R. T. is challenged in Writ Petition No. 168/89. In the application under section 43-B of the Act, made by Laxman, who had anticipated that the application made by his son Vivek could be dismissed on the ground that Vivek is not the landlord, he alleged that the suit land was let out for Bagayat purposes meaning that the land was let out for the purpose of taking irrigated crops. Laxman further alleged that the land was actually used for the purpose of taking Banana crop; 7/12 extracts show that on the major portion of the land banana crop was taken. Laxman contended that the land was covered by Clause (b) of section 43-A of the Act; the Tahsildar could, therefore, fix the rent under section 43-B of the Act. This application was heard by the Tahsildar, who held that though it was proved that banana crop was taken on the said land, it was not proved that the said land was let out for the purpose of growing of fruits. In view of this, the Tahsildar came to the conclusion that the case was not covered under Clause (b) of section 43-A and, therefore, section 43-B was not applicable. This decision was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on appeal and the M. R. T. dismissed the revision. This judgment of the M. R. T. is challenged in Writ Petition No. 641/90.