DIGAMBAR DHARMA DESHMUKH Vs. RUSTAM APPARAO DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three set of writ petitions can be heard and decided together as the subject-matter and the parties are common. The land in question is Gut No. 184 admeasuring 21 acres 11 gunthas situated at wadasyinge, Taluka Madha, District Solapur. It is undisputed that the land was vatan land. The Watandar of the said land was one Rustum Deshmukh. The land has been subsequently regranted in favour of Rustum Deshmukh and, therefore, he became the absolute owner thereof. According to Rustum, nana Tatya Shinde was cultivating the suit land as a tenant. But he surrendered his possession sometime in 1955. It appears that, later on Nana Tatya shinde disputed the surrender, because of which an order was passed by the appropriate authority on 30-3-1958, against the owner Rustum Deshmukh, to restore the possession of the land to Nana Tatya Shinde. That order was challenged by Rustum Deshmukh. That appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the first authority. Before the first authority, however, Nana tatya Shinde appeared and made statement that he was not interested in restoration of the land. In view of that statement, authority dropped the restoration proceeding on 16-2-1963. With this order the land remained in possession of Rustum Deshmukh.

(2.) IN the mean time, Rustum Deshmukh landlord had already indicted one Digambar Deshmukh as a tenant in the suit land. The revenue record clearly establishes that on the Tiller's day i. e. on 1-4-1957 Digambar Deshmukh was lawfully cultivating the suit land on crop share basis. The said Digambar deshmukh claims that he was in lawful cultivation of the suit land on 1-4-1957 as well as when the regrant of the land was made in favour of Rustum deshmukh. It is his case, therefore, he became deemed purchaser by operation of law and entitled to purchase the suit land. It is also seen that Digambar deshmukh had given intimation under section 32-O and started proceeding under section 32-G for purchase of the suit land. It appears that Digambar deshmukh made statement in those proceedings that he was not willing to purchase the suit land. Even Nana Shinde who had appeared in those proceedings did not express his willingness to purchase the suit land. In the circumstances, the authority proceeded to declare that the sale/purchase in respect of the suit land has become ineffective and, therefore, directed the occupants to restore the possession of the suit land to the owner under section 32-P of the Act. That order, under section 32-P in favour of Rustum deshmukh came to be passed on 30-3-1967. Against the order, suo motu revision proceedings were initiated some time in July, 1967. The revisional authority by order dated 30-3-1969 remanded the matter to the first authority holding that the authority could not have passed order under section 32-P. Accordingly, the matter stood remanded to the first authority. The first authority after remand, on enquiry found that, Digambar Deshmukh was in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the relevant dates and, therefore, became deemed purchaser and entitled to purchase the suit land from the owner. The first authority therefore, proceeded to determine the purchase price in respect of the suit land. Admittedly, this order has not been challenged by the owner Rustum Deshmukh himself. In other words, Rustum Deshmukh acquiesced of this order for which reason Digambar Deshmukh was entitled to purchase the suit land. However, that process was interdicted because of the appeal preferred by Nana Shinde, the erstwhile tenant. Nana Shinde challenged the order passed in favour of Digambar Deshmukh and instead claimed that he was entitled to be declared as deemed purchaser. That appeal came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 30-4-1985. Against this decision, nana Shinde filed revision application. Even the owner Rustum Deshmukh filed another revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but against the remand order passed by the suo motu revision dated 30-3-1969. The revisional authority has rejected the revision preferred by Rustum deshmukh, which challenged the remand order dated 30-3-1969. In so far as revision filed by Nana Shinde is concerned, the revisional authority by the impugned judgment and order dated 12-8-1988 thought that further enquiry was necessary and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication to the first authority. The revisional authority has, however, clearly found that the revenue records would indicate that Digambar Deshmukh was in lawful possession and cultivating the suit land on the relevant dates.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, the aforesaid remand order has been challenged in three sets of writ petitions filed before this Court. The owner Rustum Deshmukh has filed writ petition challenging the order passed by the revisional authority dismissing his revision which had taken exception to the order dated 30-3-1969. The owner Rustum Deshmukh has filed another writ petition also challenging the remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 12-8-1988, whereas tenant Digambar Deshmukh has challenged the same remand order passed by the Tribunal dated 12-8-1988 on the ground that there was no occasion for the Tribunal to remand the matter for further enquiry.