SHAMSUNDER PANDHARINATH YADNURWAR Vs. WASUDEO GANPATI BOBDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is, whether the respondent was a protected tenant and the certificate issued by the Tenancy Tahsildar would be the conclusive proof and on that basis mutation entry could be recorded and certified by the Revenue Inspector in the land records?

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under : the petitioner is the original owner of the agricultural land of which the respondent claims to be a protected tenant and, therefore, he filed an application before the Talathi for recording mutation entry in his name on the basis of the certificate issued by the Tenancy Tahsildar under the hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short the tenancy Act ). The mutation entry was recorded which was certified by the revenue Inspector in Mutation Entry No. 259 on 22. 2. 1983. The petitioner/ owner being aggrieved by the certification of the said mutation entry had carried appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer under s. 247 of the Maharashtra land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short the Code ). The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 18. 3. 1986 dismissed the appeal and the petitioner being aggrieved by this order carried second appeal to the Resident Deputy collector. The second appeal came to be decided by the Resident Deputy collector on 28. 12. 1987 and he allowed the appeal. Thereafter, the respondent preferred Revision before the Commissioner which came to be decided on 28. 2. 1991. The Additional Commissioner allowed the Revision setting aside the finding of the Resident Deputy Collector and restored the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Additional Commissioner while setting aside the order passed by the Resident Deputy Collector, upheld certification of the Mutation Entry No. 259. This order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) MR. Badiye, learned Counsel, for the petitioner contended that there were no tenancy proceedings started in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act. The certificate of ownership issued by the Tenancy tahsildar is fake and bogus. He contended that no notice was served upon the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was given to him in the so-called tenancy proceedings on the basis of which the certificate has been issued. In absence of the prescribed procedure being followed for declaring the tenant as the owner of the disputed land, it cannot be said that the mutation entry recorded on the basis of the certificate is legal and valid. He contended that the disputed land has already been acquired by the Western coal Fields Ltd. and the compensation for the same is to be disbursed on the basis of the mutation entry erroneously recorded in favour of the respondent and, in such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the additional Commissioner cannot be sustained in law and deserves to be set aside and that of the Resident Deputy Collector needs to be restored.