HARIRAM PANDURANG GAIKWAD Vs. BALBHIMRAO KRISHNAJIRAO KADAM

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 July 15, 1988 in M. R. T. S. H. I 18/86 (TNC. B 42/86 ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the land in question is bearing Gat No. 813 admeasuring 3. 75 H. situated at village Kadlas, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur. The petitioners were tenants in the suit land since the time of original landlady Smt. Satvashiladevi Vijayraje Pawar. The said landlady was widow on the tillers day i. e. 1-4-1957. As a consequence of that the petitioners right to purchase stood postponed. However, the said landlady died on 4-7-1971. According to the petitioners they were not aware of the death of the landlady as she died at Athni in the State of Karnataka and they had no intimation in that behalf. It is only when the mutation entry in respect of the suit land was changed on 10-12-1979 and the heirs of the original landlady were brought on record, the petitioners acquired knowledge of the death of their landlady. According to the petitioners, therefore, they issued notice giving intimation of their intention to purchase the suit land on 29-11-1980. The petitioners contend that this intimation has been given within the statutory period of two years from the date of knowledge of death of the landlady and therefore the same was valid and could be effectuated in declaring the petitioners as deemed to have purchased the suit land. Subsequently, proceedings under section 32-G were initiated in which the respondents resisted the claim of the petitioners that they have right to purchase the suit land. According to the respondents, the petitioners ought to have exercised the right within the statutory period and they have failed to do so. In so far as the notice given by the petitioners to Shri B. P. Misal on 29-11-1980, it was contended that at the relevant time Shri B. P. Misal was not authorised and appointed as Power of Attorney, however, he was appointed only on 3-4-1982. It was therefore contended that the notice given to Shri B. P. Misal on 29-11-1980 was of no consequence and that notice cannot be said to be intimation given to the respondents landlord, as required by provisions of the Act. The Tahsildar by order dated 31-12-1983 rejected the claim of the respondents and held that notice given by the petitioners was valid. The Tahsildar has observed thus: It is clear that notice was served to landlord. The acknowledgment of registered post is among the case papers. The same notice tenant also send to the Tribunal by R. P. A. D. and it is also served. After receipt of the notice the landlord or Tribunal was not informed to the tenant that the notice was to valid so it is clear that the notice was correct and valid. " On this premise the Tahsildar proceeded to hold that the petitioners have exercised their right to purchase the suit land and therefore determined the purchase price of the land and passed the following order:

(3.) AGAINST this decision the respondents carried the matter in appeal. It is seen from the judgment of the Appellate Authority that specific contention was raised even before the Appellate Authority on behalf of the respondents that notice given by the tenant on 29-11-1980 was invalid on the ground that the said notice was addressed to B. P. Misal, who was authorised as Power of Attorney only on 3-4-1982. The Appellate Authority, however, answered the said objection on the following reasons: Both the tenants have not known as to who is the landlord after Smt. Satwasheeladevi. They have exercised his right accordingly to Tenancy Act. Shri B. P. Misal, Advocate was received the notice from the tenant on behalf of the landlord on 2-12-1980. It is clear that notice was served to landlord. After receipt of the notice the landlord or Tribunal was not informed to the tenant that the notice was not valued so it is clear that the notice was correct and valued. " Accordingly the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed by the Assistant Collector, Pandharpur by order dated September 30, 1985.