ANNA KRISHNA NATULKAR Vs. RAMU GANNU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Pune Camp, Kplhapur, dated 18/06/1987 in Revision no. MRT SS/157/84.

(2.) THE land in question is situated at village Shirishi, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli bearing Survey No. 372/2 and 372/3. Undisputedly the said lands were in possession of one Dnyanu Dhondi Patil since 1947-48 as a tenant. It is the case of the petitioners that since Dnyanu Dhondi Patil was having excess land, told the predecessor of the petitioners Anna Krishna Natulkar to cultivate 2 shares in the suit lands and that he would cultivate one share thereof. The petitioners further asset that above arrangement was arrived at between the parries in the presence of landlord Dinkaf Waman Hasbnis in or around 1948. According to the petitioners since they were in possession of the suit lands on the tillers day i. e. 1-4-1957 they were entitled to be declared as deemed to have purchased the suit lands. Accordingly application was filed by the petitioners for declaration under section 70 (b) of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said act), that the petitioners were tenants in 2/3rd area of the aforesaid land. This application was resisted by the respondents. According to the respondents they were paying all the outgoings with regard to the suit land and the rent receipts were also in favour of the respondents. In other words, the claim of the petitioners that they were tenants was disputed. The Tahasildar, Shirala, before whom the said proceedings were initiated, by the judgment and order dated 31-1-1980 dismissed the application accepting the claim of the respondents that the petitioners were not lawfully cultivating the suit lands as tenants. Against this decision the petitioners carried the matter in appeal before the S. D. O. Sangli. The appellate authority on the other hand by judgment and order dated 22/05/1984 allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners and remanded the matter to the lower Court for fresh enquiry and for scanning the evidence in proper context in the light of observations made in its judgment. According to the Appellate Court there were clear circumstances to show that the petitioners were cultivating the suit lands as tenants and those material have not been properly considered by the lower Court, The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein preferred revision before the Tribunal challenging the remand order passed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal reversed the opinion expressed by the appellate authority and found that there was absolutely no evidence in favour of the petitioners to hold them to be tenants. The tribunal further found that evidence sought to be relied of Watmukhtyar cannot be considered as against the weight of documentary evidence which supports the case of the respondents. Accordingly revisional Court set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the order passed by the tahasildar rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners. Against this decision present writ petition under Article 227 has been filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sawant for the petitioners in the revisional Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in exercise of section 76 of the Act by interfering with the discretionary order passed by the appellate authority of remanding the case to the first authority. He submits that the appellate authority has rightly referred to the circumstances which would indicate that the petitioners were tenants in respect of the suit lands and those aspects were not properly considered by the trial Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners therefore contends that the Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the remand order passed by the appellate authority. To buttress the contention of the scope of revisional jurisdiction, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court reported in 1998 (2) Bom. C. R. 684 : 1997 (3) Mh. L. J. 899 (Ganapati shankar Desai and another v. Rau Ganu Killedar and others ).