NANDKISHORE FAKIRCHAND SEVAK Vs. NANJI RAGHOJI MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenure-holder of survey number 125/1, area 18 acres 37 gunthas, land revenue Rs. 28. 37 of village Tembhurna, taluq Khamgaon, district Buldana. A partition was effected on 30-6-1959 between the petitioner, his brother and father and along with the other property the aforesaid survey number was allotted to the share of the petitioner. His name was also duty mutated in the record of rights. The petitioner was a minor having been born on 11-10-1956 on the date of partition.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 Ninaji was cultivating survey number 125/1 as a tenant. Suo Motu proceedings for considering the question whether Ninaji, the tenant had become the owner of the property were started by the Additional Tahsildar and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Khamgaon. In these proceedings it was contended by the tenure-holder that he being a minor the property cannot be transferred in favour of the tenant. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that the suit field could be compulsorily transferred in favour of the tenant because the share of the petitioner in the joint family property was not separated by metes and bounds before the prescribed date as contemplated by second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act and thereafter the Lands Tribunal proceeded to fix the price at 48 times the land revenue.

(3.) THIS order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khamgaon. The order passed by the Lands Tribunal was modified by the Sub-Divisional Officer by reducing the price. According to the Sub-Divisional Officer, the price had to be calculated at 36 times the land revenue, and therefore, the calculations were made accordingly. The Sub-Divisional Officer also placed reliance on Rule 17 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Rule, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 41 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and held that in spite of the minority of the petitioner the tenant was entitled to be declared as purchaser of the land in question. Therefore, except for the modification in the fixation of the price the Sub-Divisional Officer maintained the order passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal.