KAMALABAI RAU DHANGAR Vs. MAHADEO GOPAL JAVANDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order dated 12th November 1987 in revision No. MRT-KP-181/84 passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Camp Kolhapur. Briefly stated, the Petitioner claims to be the owner in respect of land bearing Survey No. 616 admeasuring 36 gunthas situated at village wadange, taluka Karveer, district Kolhapur. Proceedings under section 32g of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act were commenced in the year 1960* but were dropped on the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Against the said decision? the tenant carried the matter in appeal. The appellate authority? in turn? remanded the matter for further enquiry by its decision dated 29th February 1964. While the remand proceedings were pending, in the meantime, action under section 145 of the Code of Criminal procedure was commenced wherein the suit land stood attached on 21st January 1963. The sub-Divisional Magistrate made reference to the civil Court for its decision being Criminal reference No. 1 of 1963. In the said reference, issue was framed by the Civil Court as to which party was in actual possession of the disputed land on the relevant date, i. e. , 23-2-l963. The trial Court answered the said issue in favour of the Petitioner, Later on, the Respondent instituted suit against the Petitioner for injunction. In the said suit, issue of tenancy was raised on account of which the Civil Court made reference to the tenancy authority under section 85a of the Act. The said reference was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 36/1965, which was heard and finally decided by the Agricultural lands Tribunal by judgment and order dated december 15, 1965. The said authority positively found on appreciation of materials on record that the Respondent failed to prove his possession and wahiwat in respect of the suit land as tenant. It is not in dispute as has been found by the courts below that this decision was allowed to attain finality, as the Respondent did not question correctness thereof. However, the remand proceedings under section 32g of the Act in terms of order passed by the Sub-Divisional officer dated February 20, 1964, continued further notwithstanding the aforesaid finding recorded against the Respondent. In view of the above finding, in fact, no further proceedings under section 32g of the Act were warranted. Be that as it may? the first authority, by judgment and order dated November 21, 1974, took the view that the Respondent was tenant and entitled to purchase the suit land being deemed purchaser. Against this decision, the Petitioner filed appeal, being Appeal No. 34 of 1975. The appellate Court by its judgment and order dated july 30, 1976, allowed the appeal and held that the Respondent was not tenant. That order was challenged by the Respondent by way of revision application before the Tribunal, which was, however, allowed by the Tribunal on December 18, 1977. What is relevant to note is that the petitioner moved by way of review petition before the Tribunal for recall of order dated December 18, 1977. The Tribunal, upon re-examination of the order, allowed the said review application by judgment and order dated June 15, 1978. In the said decision, the Tribunal observed that the matter deserves to be remanded to the trial Court for further examination to find out whether the original Petitioner landlady was widow on the relevant date, for which reason the proceedings under section 32g should be dropped. The review order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the Respondent before this Court by way of special Civil Application No. 3145 of 1978. It will be apposite to reproduce the order as passed by this Court on October 18, 1982 in the said writ petition. The same reads thus :

(2.) INSOFAR as the issue as to whether the respondent was lawful tenant in respect of the suit land is concerned, the appellate authority observed thus :

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tribunal has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under section 76 of the Act. In the first place, it has not considered the effect of the decision which has attained finality between the parties rendered on 15th December 1965 by the tenancy authority holding that the respondent was not lawful tenant in respect of the suit land. It is also contended that the tribunal could not have re-appreciated the materials on record, so as to reverse the finding of fact as returned by the authorities below. It is contended that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in interfering with the revision application as preferred by the Respondents, that too on the reasons which are totally untenable. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents would contend that no fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal and neither the decision passed in review proceedings nor the earlier view recorded by the tenancy authority in decision dated 15th December 1965 will be of no avail to the Petitioner. In other words* the learned Counsel has supported the impugned decision of the Tribunal and adopted the reasons recorded by the Tribunals as his submissions.