SHIVAJI GANPAT MANDLIK Vs. DILIPSINHA DINKAR MAHADIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Respondent waives service. Heard forthwith.

(2.) THE respondent-landlord filed an application under the provisions of section 43-1b read with section 29 (3-A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as BT and AL Act ). It was the case of the applicant-landlord (the respondent herein) that the opponents in the application who are the petitioners herein, were the tenants of the land. The property was described as 1/3rd portion of the land situated in Village Kasba Karveer, Taluka Karveer, District Kolhapur bearing Block No. 648, Hissa No. 19 admeasuring 18 ares and assessed at Rs. 0-31. The land was situated within the Urban Agglomeration of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The name of the opponent stood recorded in the 7 x 12 extract revenue records as tenant in the capacity of Manager of Joint Hindu Family. The applicant-landlord retired from the services of the Indian Armed Forces on the post of Colonel. The landlord invoked the provisions of section 43-1b of the BT and AL Act. It was further contended that on getting possession of the land, the holdings would not exceed the ceiling limit.

(3.) BY order dated 29th June, 1996, the Additional Collector, Kolhapur in TNC Application No. 2 of 1995 upheld the objection of the petitioners that the land was situated within the Urban Agglomeration and consequently dismissed the same. A review was preferred. In review, the order was reversed insofar as the earlier ground of objection. It was held that the land is situated outside the limits of Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and, as such, the provisions of section 43-1b was attracted. It was however, held that under section 43-1b, the benefit could be given to landlords who retire from Military Service. Such landlord who retired from Military Service, should apply for termination of tenancy within two years of such retirement. It was noted that the notice of termination was given on 4th November, 1994. The respondent-landlord retired on 31st March, 1995. Notice of termination was given while the applicant was in service which is illegal. The notice was also not given to all the other heirs of Ganpatrao. It was further noted that Ganpatrao was survived by two sons and six daughters. For the aforesaid reasons, the application was rejected.