KERBA BHIVAJI SHINDE Vs. SALUBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated December 13, 1982, S.J. Deshpande, J, directed that the Writ petition No. 3352, Writ petition No. 2060/1981, First Appeal No. 137/1979 and First Appeal No. 419/1979 be heard together not later than March 1983. Writ Petition No. 2060/1981 was not connected matter with the other three matters and, therefore, it was independently heard and disposed of by this Court. The rest of the three matters are heard together. However, it is advisable to dispose of these three matters by separate judgment.

(2.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner-Kerba Bhivaji Shinde who claims to be a tenant of Land Survey No. 2 (2-A) admeasuring 12 acres and 13 gunthas situated at village Rohi-Pimpalgaon, Taluka and District Nanded, challenged the order passed by the learned member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, dated Occupier 12, 1981, whereby it is held that the application against the landlord would not be maintainable under section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) but the application ought to have been filed under section 98 of the Tenancy Act.

(3.) Few facts leading to this petition are:---That Santuka Nagorao (respondent No. 3) herein is the recorded landholder of Land Survey No. (2-A). The respondent No. 1 Salubai is the mother of respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 Venubai is the married sister of respondent No. 3. By an application dated May 18, 1976. Kerba-petitioner herein filed an application under section 32(1) of the Tenancy Act against all the respondents. He contended in the application that he was a tenant of the said land with effect from 1966-67 on behalf of Santuka, (respondent No. 3) and accordingly the entries in the revenue register have been made in his favour. It is also contended that there was an agreement of sale of the said land dated April 15, 1968 and for that reason he filed a suit for specific performance in the Civil Court. The said application was opposed by written statement by the respondents and the claim of the petitioner was denied. After the due enquiry the Naib Tahsildar, Nanded, by his judgment and order dated December 24, 1980 allowed the application holding the petitioner to be the tenant of the land. The respondent preferred an appeal against the judgement and order before the Dy. Collector and the Dy. Collector, land reforms, Nanded allowed the appeal by judgment and order dated May 22, 1981, by setting aside the order of the trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order of Dy. Collector the petitioner filed a revision application to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That application was dismissed by judgment and order dated October 12, 1981. It is that judgement and order that is challenged in this writ petition.