RAMA NINGAPPA JOSHILKAR Vs. KIRTIKUMAR PAWATRAO DESAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner are respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in the above special Civil application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India are tenants of agricultural land bearing survey No. 66, measuring 2 acres 39 gunthas and assessed at Rs. 16. 00 situate at village Hundalewadi in Taluka Chandgad. District Kolhapur. In an enquiry held under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Acts, 1948, the Additional Mamlatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Chandgad, by his order dated November 20, 1963 declared that the statutory sale in favour of the tenants had become ineffective inasmuch as the land in question belonged to a minor landlord-respondent No. 1 whose birth date is May, 20, 1942 and who attained majority on May 20, 1960. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that as the tenants failed to give notice under Section 32-F (1a) within one year's period, the sale had become ineffective.

(2.) THE petitioner challenged the said decision before the Prant officer, Gadhinglaj Division, by way of an appeal contending that the landlord having made an application under Section 31, after the attained majority the tenant became automatically the statutory purchaser under section 32, after the dismissal of the application of August 16, 1961, because under section 32-F (2) the provisions of sections 32 to 32-E and sections 32-G to 32-R shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to such purchase. The Prant officer overruled this contention and dismissed the appeal of the tenant of February 20, 1967. The petitioner challenged the said decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by filing a revision application. The revision application was also dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal on April 26, 1968. The said decisions are challenged in the above petition.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the petition, the Maharashtra Legislature enacted by Mah. Act 49 of 1969 a proviso to sub-section (1-A) of section 32-F laying down that even though the tenant had not given intimation as required by sub-section (1-A), if the tenant continued in possession of the land of the commencement of the amending Act which came into force on October 17, 1969, he could give intimation within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act i. e. before 17th October. 1971. Mr. Gole is unable to show whether a fresh intimation was given under this sub-section. However, it is now settled that if the tenant has been contending before all the tenancy authorities that he wants to purchase the land that is substantial compliance with this proviso. By filing appeal against the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and revision application against the decision of the Deputy collector and this special civil application, the tenant has given sufficient notice to the landlord that he desires to purchase the land under section 32-F. For this reason alone the order passed by the three tenancy authorities deserves to be quashed and the proceedings remitted to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for holding further enquiry under Section 32-G.