ANNASAHEB BALGONDA PATIL Vs. SIDHAPPA GIRAPPA HEMGIRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp at Kolhapur dated 16th December 1987 in Revision No.MRT/KP/61/1985. The land involved in the present Writ Petition is Gut No.453 at Village Dattawad admeasuring 1 Hector and 8 Ares which formed part of old Survey No.107/1. The land was owned by Shivgonda Virgonda Patil (1/2 share) and Annasahib Dasgonda Patil and his brother Shankar Basgonda (together half share). After consolidation proceedings, the land was spilt up into Gut No.453 and 454. In so far as the Gut No.453 with which we are concerned, went to the share of Anna Sahib Dasgonda Patil - in exchange of Gut No.454, which went to the share of Shivgonda Patil. The Respondent No.1 claims to have become deemed purchaser; as according to him, he was in occupation of the suit land in the capacity of tenant on the Tiller's day. On this premise, proceedings under Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were commenced. In that proceeding, the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. by Judgment and Order dated 28th August 1979 held that, the enquiry in respect of Gut No.453 - suit land, will have to be dropped because, the Respondent No.1 was not in possession of the suit land on the Tiller's day.

(2.) THE first authority adverted to the fact that the land was Watan land and Watan was abolished on 1st January 1967. By operation of law, the provisions relating to tenant having become deemed purchaser or to have purchased the land stood postponed, so long as the Patilki Watan was not abolished and land was not regranted to the owner. In the present case, it has come on record that the Petitioner paid occupancy price on 30th December 1965 presumably in anticipation of regrant in favour of the Owner. Be that as it may, the first authority proceeded to hold that the tenant had lost possession by virtue of surrender in the year 1958-59, which is prior to the relevant date and for that reason the tenant could not be said to have purchased the suit land under Section 32G of the Act.

(3.) AGAINST this decision, the Petitioner carried the matter in Revision before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on the other hand, after considering the material on record, affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Authority, as can be discerned from the discussion in Paragraph Nos.8 and 9 of the impugned Judgment. The Revisional Authority has noted that the land was shown cultivated by the landlord between 1958-59 to 1962-63 but inspite of that the tenant was shown to be protected tenant in the other rights column under the same Mutation Entry No.2042. The Revisional Authority has also adverted to the fact that, in the 7/12 extract of 1962-63, the name of the tenant was shown on the basis of Vardi Application dated 23rd October 1962 for the year 1962-63 concerning 2.10 hectors of land. It is also noted that pencil entry has been effected on the basis of that Vardi. In the year 1964-65, again pencil entry shown in the name of the tenant as 'Kul' and 'Khand'. The Revisional Authority therefore, observed that the exact date of dispossession of the tenant in respect of Gut No.453 cannot be authoritatively found on the basis of such material. In this backdrop, the Revisional Court has affirmed the view taken by the Appellate Authority that further enquiry into the matter was necessary to ascertain the said factual position and therefore, preferred to dismiss the Revision Application preferred by the Petitioner.