SHAMRAO JOTI KUMBHAR Vs. RAMESH KHANDU SAPRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India takes exception of the judgment and order dated 5/6/1998 passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur in Revision Application nos. MRT/kp/55/87 and MRT/kp/56/87.

(2.) THE land in question is land bearing Survey No. 98 situate at Kumbharwadi, Taluka - Radhanagari, District -Kolhapur, admeasuring 2 acres and 23 gunthas. The predecessor of the petitioners Joti Amruta Kumbhar was cultivating the land as a tenant. Proceedings under section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 were initiated. However, the tenant did not appear in the said proceedings. On account of which, the Additional Tahsildar by order dated 12/5/1961 declared the purchase to be ineffective. After that decision, the tenant Joti Amruta Kumbhar died. The petitioners herein, claim to be the heirs of the original tenant and having succeeded to her rights and interests in the said property, filed an application before the Tenancy Authority for restoration of proceedings under Section 32g of the Act sometime on 27/11/1972. Pursuant to that application, the proceedings were restored and fresh notices were issued by order dated 18/12/1972. Pursuant to the said notices, the petitioners appeared and made joint statement before the Authority that they were unwilling to purchase the suit land. That statement was recorded by the Tenancy Authority on 28/12/1973. Accordingly, on the basis of the joint statement, an order came to be passed on 29/12/1973 and the tenancy stood terminated and the purchase became ineffective. The petitioners also made a statement that they were ready and willing to hand over possession of the suit land to the respondents-landlords. Against that decision, the petitioners carried the matter by way of two separate appeals before the Assistant Collector, Shahuwadi division, Kolhapur being (1) Tenancy Appeal No. 16 of 1986 and (2) Tenancy Appeal No. 17 of 1986 challenging the orders passed under Section 329 and 32-P proceedings. The Appellate Authority was pleased to allow the Appeals and remanded the matters for fresh consideration to the First Authority by judgment and order dated 30/4/1986. According to the Appellate authority, proper procedure was not followed and that it was impermissible to record joint statement of unwillingness to purchase the suit land as was recorded by the Authority. Against this decision, the respondents filed Revision Application before the tribunal. The Tribunal on analyzing the entire material on record found that both these above points expressed by the Appellate Authority were untenable. On that basis, the Tribunal concluded that there was no need of remanding the matters especially having regard to the express statement made by the tenants regarding unwillingness to purchase the suit land. The Revisional authority has considered all aspects of the matter in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the impugned order to allow the revision Application preferred by the respondents.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, the Revisional authority had exceeded its jurisdiction, for it could not have entertained the Revision against an order of remand. The learned counsel contended that the appellate Authority had observed that the order passed by the First Authority was without following necessary procedure of law. In such a case, the question of entertaining Revision Application would not arise. The learned counsel further submits that in any case, the revisional Authority could not have entertained the revision Application because, the same was barred by limitation and no sufficient cause was shown. Further contends, the learned counsel that, the Revisional authority, in any case, could not have proceeded exparte against the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to at least one fair opportunity to contest the proceedings. On the above submissions, the learned counsel contends that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.