PARASHRAM BHIKAJI RAUT Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Advocate Z. A. Haq for petitioner, learned Advocate Sable for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and learned A. G. P. Mr. Mandpe for respondent No. 1.

(2.) BY this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner, who claims to be a tenant, is challenging orders passed by Sub Divisional officer, Balapur and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur holding that the petitioner is not tenant of field Survey No. 17 of Mouza : Alegaon, tq. Patur and reversing the order of Tahsildar, Patur by which the said Tahsildar had held that the original petitioner Parashram had right of the tenant holding suit land and was entitled to purchase it under section 41 of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act ). During pendency of the petition Parashram has expired and his heirs have been brought on record as per order dated 26-11-1992. It appears that Parashram presented the application under section 50 of the Tenancy Act before Tahsildar, Patur for fixation of purchase price of field Survey No. 79 measuring 3. 39 acres of village Alegaon contending that he is tenant of that field and his tenancy is created after specified date as given under section 46 of the Tenancy Act and it is renewable every year. The tahsildar after recording evidence of Parashram, one Udebhan Ganpat Ganpat bajirao Mahalle and original respondent Yashwant and his Mukhtyar has recorded finding that the petitioner was tenant who had right to purchase the said field. It appears that Yashwant expired in the meanwhile and his heirs filed appeal under section 107 of the Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional officer, Balapur. The said authority relied upon the order sheet dated 22nd march, 1971 recorded by Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal in Revenue case No. 59 (13-A) 1963-64 of Mouza Alegaon and held that Parashram was not tenant but a partner and therefore, he had no right to purchase the suit field. The Sub-Divisional Officer therefore, allowed the appeal. Parashram challenged this order by filling revision under section 111 of Tenancy Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and the M. R. T. upheld the order of S. D. O. by observing that the petitioner was cultivating the suit land as partner and not as a tenant.

(3.) THE unsuccessful tenant Parashram thereafter filed this petition. The petition has been admitted by this Court for early hearing. on 16-7-1992.