GULABBHAI BAPUBHAI GAWANDI Vs. SONUBAI BAPURAO KATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act". Five lands were the subject-matter of the tenancy of the petitioner. Those lands are situated in Village Wathar in Phaltan Taluka of Satara Distirct. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/3 and 40/6 originally belonged to one Krishna Maruti Parit after whose death respondent No. 3 succeeded to the lands as the owner. Respondent No. 3, therefore, became the landlord of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. Two other lands, namely lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/2 and 40/5 originally belonged to one Ranu Keru Parit and the first respondent in this petition is the heir of the said Ranu Keru Parit. She is now the landlady of the petitioner in respect of the said two lands.

(2.) Proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were held and as the courts below have found, notice of these proceedings was admittedly served upon the petitioner. On 5th of October, 1960, on which day the proceedings under section 32-G were held, the petitioner was absent and, therefore, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal declared the purchase ineffective. No grievance was made by the petitioner against this order.

(3.) Thereafter, on 24th of December, 1962, an order under section 32-P of the Bombay enancy Act was passed. By this order the possession of all the land was directed to be restored to the respective landlords. No grievance was made by the petitioner against this order also. In the year 1965, in execution of the aforesaid order, lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/3 and 40/6 were handed over into the possession of respondent No. 3. It must, therefore, necessarily follow that at least on this date on which the petitioner of the said lands was handed over to respondent No. 3, the petitioner must have come to know that an order under section 32-P to his prejudice has been passed. Despite this, the petitioner did not take any step against the order passed on 24th of December, 1962 nor against the order passed on 5th of October, 1960.