KISAN PANDURANG VARKAD Vs. JAISING MARUTI VARKAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are based on identical set of facts and the Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have decided two applications together and disposed of by a common judgment. Both these writ petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by the common judgment. (The parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their status in this writ petition ). The facts that are required to be stated in brief are as follows: Land Gat No. 57/1 and Gat No. 57/2 situate at Ghospuri, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar were previously owned by Moro Ganesh Kulkarni. Moro Ganesh Kulkarni, by a registered sale deed dated 11-8-1947 sold this land to the father of the present respondent. The present respondent in both these applications claims to be the owner on the basis of the said sale deed.

(2.) ONE Sawalaram claimed to be a tenant over both these lands. This Sawalaram has two sons namely Pandurang and Rangnath. Both predeceased their father Santaram. Two sons of Santaram namely Pandurang and Rangnath survived by their sons namely Kisan and Madhav. Santaram died in 1949 and after death of Santaram, the present petitioners in both the petitions came in possession of the lands as a tenants. After demise of Santaram in 1949 the present petitioners continued in possession as tenant.

(3.) THE respondent filed two civil suits against these petitioners in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D.) Ahmednagar being (R. C. S. No. 52/79) and R. C. S. No. 63/79 claiming declaration that (i) he may be declared as owner of the land, (ii) the defendant being a tenant of the suit land, symbolical possession be given to the plaintiff. Undisputed fact is that both the suits were came to be decreed on 3-5-1985. The Civil Court decreed the suit and granted declaration as prayed by the plaintiff that is present respondent and held him as a owner of the suit property. The finding also recorded that the present petitioners who were defending that suit were declared to be the tenant in possession of the land and they were directed to handover symbolic possession of the suit land. A statement is made at the bar that the petitioners who were defendants in that suit filed appeals but the said appeals are dismissed. Now I proceed to refer to the proceedings which are subject-matter of these two writ petitions. The respondent by two separate applications being Tenancy Application No. 3/85 and 5/85 approached the Collector, Ahmednagar invoking the Collectors jurisdiction under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Both these applications related to the lands which are in possession of the respective petitioners being land Gat No. 139 (S. No. 57/1) and Gat No. 145 (S. No. 57/2 ). In the said application it is contended that the present petitioners are in possession of the said land. It was contended that after the purchase of the land by his father on 11-8-1947, the name of his father came to be recorded. It is contended that Sawalaram was in possession of the land as tenant from 4-8-1949 and thereafter, the land came in possession of the present petitioners. Further, it was contended in the said application that the petitioners have taken a plea in the civil suit that they are not the tenants but they have became owners by adverse possession. The plea taken by them has been turned down by the Civil Court. It was contended that in view of the fact that the petitioners in civil suit have raised a plea that they have become owners by adverse possession, their possession is unlawful and it was stated that the opponents are unauthorisedly occupying the land mentioned in the application and their possession is therefore, wrong. It was contended in the said application that the petitioners are purposely denying that they are the tenants over the suit land. As they are denying the fact of tenancy, their possession is unauthorised. Therefore, they be evicted summarily by invoking the jurisdiction conferred by section 84 of the Act. This application came to be filed on 28-3-1985.