LAWS(BOM)-2003-6-109

PRADEEPRAO V S PATIL Vs. SIDAPPA GIRAPPA

Decided On June 19, 2003
PRADEEPRAO ALIAS VIRGONDA SHIVGONDA PATIL Appellant
V/S
SIDAPPA GIRAPPA HEMGIRE Respondents

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 at Camp Kolhapur dated 18th December 1987 in Revision No. NRT-KP-62/1985.

(2.) THE land in question was originally Survey No. 107/1 and after consolidation, the same was split up into two gat numbers; namely, Gat nos. 453 and 454. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with the gat No. 454, situated at Village Dattawad, Taluka Shirol, District Kolhapur. The land was originally Patilki Watan lands not assigned for remunera-tion in Kolhapur State. It is common ground that Eksali ordinary tenancy of Patilki Watan land in the Kolhapur State was permissible. Accordingly, the respondent was inducted as tenant in the suit land sometime in the year 1945. It is not in dispute that the respondent was cultivating the suit land in the capacity of tenant on 1st April 1957 i. e. the tillers' day as per the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act") and even thereafter i. e. on 1st January 1963, which is the appointed date within the meaning of the maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Offices) Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act" ). It is also not in dispute that the re-spondent tenant was occupying and cultivating the suit land in the capac-ity of tenant also on 30th December 1965, the day on which the landlords deposited the occupancy price with the authorities within the prescribed time provided under the Abolition Act. It is on this premises, proceed-ings under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act were commenced to fix the purchase price in respect of the suit land. The Additional Tahsildar and agricultural Lands Tribunal, Shirol, by Judgment and Order dated 28th august 1979 has held that the respondent tenant is deemed to have pur chased the suit land after the landlord had paid the occupancy price which resulted in re-grant of the suit land by virtue of provisions of the Aboli tion Act. The Tahsildar accordingly fixed the purchase price to be paid by the respondent tenant. Against this decision, the petitioner landlord car-ried the matter in appeal before the Deputy Collector, Kolhapur, bearing appeal No. 183 of 1979. The Appellate Authority has also affirmed the view taken by the Tahsildar and, therefore, dismissed the Appeal pre-ferred by the petitioner. Against that decision, matter was taken in Revi-sion before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and which came to be dis-missed by the impugned Judgment and Order. These concurrent decisions are the subject matter of challenge in the present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing for the petitioner has raised only three conten-tions. He submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that a formal order of re-grant under the provisions of Abolition Act in respect of the suit land has been issued in favour of the landlord; and if that is so, proceedings under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act were premature. To buttress this plea, reliance has been placed on the decision of our High court, in the case of Rangnath D. Vadar v. Bhagatsingh v. Kotwal Power of Attorney Girajabai Vithalsing Kotwal. It is next contended that in view of the provisions of section 8 of the Abolition Act, even assuming that the argument of the other side as found favour with the Courts below that a formal order of re-grant was not necessary and the date on which the landlord deposited the occupancy price i. e. 30th December 1965 was sufficient compliance so as to treat the re-grant having been made in favour of the landlord by operation of law under section 5 of the Abolition Act was to be accepted, even so, it will have to be presumed that the lease in respect of the suit land between the landlord and tenant commenced from 30th December, 1965 being the date of re-grant. And in such a case, the provisions of section 32o of the Tenancy Act were at-tracted and the tenant having failed to send initiation within the statu-tory period of one year from such date, has lost his right to purchase the suit land and the purchase has become ineffective in law. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court, in the case of Bandu Dhanaji Ahire v. Chatursing Parwatrao Thoke in support of the second contention. The last submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner was minor on the relevant date and the land having been transferred in favour of the petitioner, the purchase stood postponed by virtue of section 32-F of the Tenancy Act, and even for that reason, the case cannot be governed by section 32-G of the Act.