BANDU DHANAJI AHIRE Vs. CHATURSING PARWATRAO THOKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A rather interesting question of interpretation lof Sec 32-O of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948. in the context of the tenancies created under section 8 of the Maharashtra revenue Patels (Abolition oof Office) Act, 1962 arises in these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be breiefly stated as follows: the lands in dispute are S. Nos. 140/1 and 4 of village Hingave. Taluka Kalwan. District Nasik. and S. Nos. 126 and 128 of the village. The lands wereoriginally Inam lands class VI-B. Respondentno 1 in the two petitions was the Inamdar. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1011 of 1968 was the tenant of S. Nos. 140/- and 4 of village. Hingave. The petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1091 of 1968 was the tenant ofd S. Nos. 126 and 128. The Inams were abolished under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition odf Office) Act, 1962. with effect from January 1, 1963. It is not dispuuted that the lands were regranted to respondent No. 1 under Section 5 of the Maharashtra revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962. section 8 of the said Act provided:-

(3.) THE Agricultural Lands Tribunals and Mamlatdar Kalwan started proceeding under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculural Lands Act. 1948 and declared the tenants to be the statutory purchasers were of the said lands as the petitioners were cultivating the lands as tenants for a numberof years, even prior to the tillers' day under the Tenancy Act, i. e. April 1, 1957.