KONDIBA Vs. GAJANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The dispute in this petition relates to the land Survey No. 283 admeasuring 2 acres and 33 gunthas situate in the village of Nagardevale in Taluka and District Ahmednagar. The petitioner is a tenant -original applicant, while respondent No. 1 is the landlord -original opponent. It is common ground that since 1952 respondent No. 1 is blind and, therefore, he is a disabled person. He applied under Sec. 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the Act"), and obtained a certificate, and thereafter Bled an application for possession of the land under Sec. 33B of the Act when still he was blind. Admittedly, even today he is blind. The application was granted by the Tenancy Court which passed an order for delivery of possession of half of the land to him. The petitioner -tenant, aggrieved by that order, went in appeal to the Deputy Collector who allowed the appeal on March 17, 1964, set aside the order of the Tenancy Court and dismissed the application of the present respondent No. 1. This order became final as it was not appealed against by the present respondent No. 1.

(2.) However, proceedings were started under Sec. 33C of the Act suo motu by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal found that the present petitioner -tenant did not give any notice of purchase to respondent No. 1 -landlord and, therefore, forfeited his right to purchase. The Tribunal, therefore, passed an order that the land should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Sec. 32P of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, but the Collector also took the same view and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner went in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by the Collector holding that the petitioner had forfeited his right to purchase because he did not give notice of purchase to respondent No. 1 -landlord. While passing this order, the Revenue Tribunal has observed thus in its judgment:

(3.) Later on, at the end of para. 5, the Revenue Tribunal has observed Thus: -