SHRINIWAS DWARKADAS AGARWAL Vs. SUNDARBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting but imporotant question relating to the statutory ownership that the tenant is entitled to possess under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Tenacy Act of 1958) and his right to get upon such transfer all the trees in a holding, has been raised in this petition.

(2.) CERTAIN facts may be noticed. The respondents 1 to 7 appear to be the lessess of Survey No. 204, area 12. 38 acres, a field assessed to Rs. 30/- and situate at villalge Thugaon -Pruna of disctrict Amravati, One Bhikamchand is the predecessor-in-title of these respondents. It appeals that on December 21, 1962, he made an offer to the land-holders who are the petitioners in this case for the purchase of the field under thye Tenancy Act of 1958 at a statutory price. Mean-while the land-holders had taken propceedings for resumption of the land under that Act on the ground that they needed the same for personal cultivation. Those proceedings terminated on October 1964. Thereafter, on September 20, 1965, an application was made by said Bhikamchand to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Amravati, for the determination of the reasonable price of the land as provided by the Tenancy Act of 1958. In that application it was admitted that there were mango trees to purchase the land leased to him for a statutory price to be determined by the Tribunal. .

(3.) BEFORE the Tribunal the fact of lease was not in dispute. However, with respect to trees, the land-holder asserted that there were mango trees as wellasother trees and two wells in the land. It was specifically urged that mango trees did not form part ofthe tenancy nor can be covered by the land leased. Evidence standing was in dispute. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal came to the conclusion thaht there were 40 mango three but it having taken the view that as it was not established as to who had planted them, it did not fix any price. By following the provisions of the Act, the Tribunal fixed the price of the land at Rs. 2521. 41. In an appeal to the Special Deputy Collector it was urged that the mango trees did not pass with the land leased nor any such right of purchase as to trees can be claimed by the tenant and if at al trees were to be transferred, the land-holder is entitleld to itis price as admittedly the same were not planted by the tenant, same were not planted by the tenant. The fact that the trees were in the possession of the land-holders and they were taking the yield thereform was restated and asserted. The appellate authority declined to interfere and the matter was taken in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal took the view that the case of the land-holder was not that the trees were excluded from the lease. The mere assertion of the land-holders that they were in possession of the mango threes and were taking the yield, according to the learned Member, was not sufficient, However, the learned Member observed that the trees growing on land would also pass under the statutory purchase and there was no cause to settle any price or pay to the land-holders.