BHILA KESHAV PATIL Vs. GANPATI CHUNILAL KABRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which arises in this special civil application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is whether the petitioners had exercised their rights of statutory purchase under section 32-0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, within one year from the commencement of the tenancy within the meaning of that section.

(2.) THE facts are as follows:-

(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said decision of the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed an appeal to the deputy Collector, Jalgaon, contending that the tenancy of the petitioners was held, in the earlier reference proceedings, to be commencing from the 1956-60 and not from the year 1967-68 and that notice of intimation of purchase was not given by the petitioners within one year from the commencement of the tenancy within the meaning of section 32-0 of the Act; and hence the purchase in favour of the tenant had become ineffective by reason of failure to give notice to the landlord within one year from 1959-60 . The Deputy Collector upheld these contentions, sets aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed the agricultural Lands Tribunal to proceed under Section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 4-A. The decision of the Deputy Collector dated March 23, 1971, was challenged by the petitioners in revision before the Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal confirmed the order of the Deputy Collector observing as under: - " The opponent filed Civil Suit No. 321 of 1967 to restrain the applicants from interfering with his possession of the suit land and the defence set up by the applicants was that they were tenants of this land since 1959-60. No doubt, as the suit was filed in 1967, the relevant question therein was regarding the possession of the land in that year namely, 1967-68. Now, the opponent sought an injunction on the footing that the applicants had no right to the land in question and were trespassers. The applicant claimed to be tenants of the land. Naturally, the issue that was referred to Revenue Court under Section 85-A was confined to the question of possession of the year 1967-68. The Judgment recorded by the appellate court, however, shows that the evidence led by the applicants was calculated to show that they were tenants in the land from the year 1959-60. It appears from the observations at certain places in the judgment, that the applicants were cultivating the land since 1959-60, and they were on the land as tenants in the material year 1967-68. The opponent unsuccessfully tried too challenge this view by bringing the matter to this tribunal, then taking it to the High Court and also to the Supreme Court. Thus, on the strength of that decision, a finding has been reached that the applicants were in possession the land from the year 1959-60. Now, the view taken by the Tahsildar and A.L. T. Jalgaon that the tenancy of the applicants should be deemed too have commenced when their names were entered as tenants on 20-4-1967 by mutation entry No. 802." In other words the revenue Tribunal took the view that because, in the earlier proceedings, it was found that the petitioners were cultivating the land as tenants from the year, it was found that the petitioners were cultivating the land as tenants from the year 1959-60, although the landlord was disputing the tenancy even in 1967, it was the duty of the tenants to give notice of one year from 1959-60 under section 32-0 of the Act.