BABU BAJIRAO KUTWAL Vs. DAMU GOVIND KUTWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is hereby assailing the correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Member of the M.R.T. in the matter of MRT P X 11/83 (TNC.B.299/83) Pune dated 11.8.1987 whereby the learned Member of M.R.T. had directed that A.L.T. and Tehsildar to hold the enquiry in respect of Southern half portion of Gat No.700/1A+3A area 2 acres and 6 gunthas assessed at Rs.1 and 4 annas situated at Supe, Taluka Baramati, District Pune.

(2.) THE controversy arose when the A.L.T. and Tehsildar Baramati in Case No.32 P (2) (c) Sale/162 granted the certificate in view of provisions of Section 32 M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for convenience) for the entire land when the said land was put to auction none came forward except the present petitioner who paid the price of Rs.75/ as purchase price of the said land. After the said certificate was granted in favour of the petitioner, Shri. Damu Govind Kutwal preferred a revision before the S.D.O. Baramati bearing Tenancy Revision Case No.23/82 wherein he contended that he happens to be the only heir of Krishna Bala Kutwal and mutation entry bearing No.576 was effected in his favour in respect of the half portion of Gat No.700/1A+3A. The said revision was heard by S.D.O. Baramati. A complaint was made about the delay in preferring the said revision petition. The point of limitation was also raised. The S.D.O. Baramati confirmed the said judgment and order passed by Tehsildar, Baramati granting the certificate under Section 32 M for the entire land to the petitioner. A revision application was filed before the M.R.T. and it was brought to the notice of the M.R.T. that the present petitioner was not entitled to get a certificate in view of Section 32 M for the entire land because Damu Govind Kutwal was the only heir to Krishna Bala Kutwal to whom the said half portion of the land belonged. After hearing the submissions advanced by the parties, the learned Member of M.R.T. came to the conclusion that it was wrong to issue certificate under Section 32 M in respect of the entire land without the enquiry regarding disposal of the suit land, viz., half portion of the land bearing Survey No.700/1A+3A measuring 2 Acres and 6 Gunthas. He pointed out that the panchanama in respect of valuation was made in respect of the half portion of Survey No.700/1A+3A and subsequently on 26 11 65 the price was fixed at R.75/ . He pointed out that in the order of Tehsildar price of Rs.75/ has been quoted. Thus, keeping in view all these facts, he came to the conclusion that what could have been sold to the petitioner is half portion of the land. Therefore, he quashed the certificate issued to the present petitioner in view of Section 32 M on 26 11 74 for entire Survey No.700/1A+3A. He directed that Babu Bajirao Kutwal, the present petitioner, was entitled to get Northern half portion of Survey No.700/1A+3A measuring 85 Ares Pot Kharaba 8 Ares and certificate in that context be issued to him under Section 32 M. He directed that in respect of the remaining Southern half portion of the said land enquiry in view of Section 32 P (2) (c) of the Bombay Tenancy Act be held after making Damu Govind Kutwal the party in the matter of the said enquiry.

(3.) MS . Smita Mane appearing for the respondent submitted that when the present petitioner was not entitled to have the entire land sold to him, how a certificate could be granted to him in respect of the entire land in view of provisions of Section 32 M of the Bombay Tenancy Act. She submitted that the M.R.T. had the jurisdiction to consider the error committed by the forum below and, therefore, the writ petition be dismissed.