BABU HARI PATIL Vs. RAMA ANANDA JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the constitution is directed against the Judgement and order dated 28. 6. 1990 passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal (for short, "mrt") by which the revision filed by respondent nos. 1 to 3-tenants was allowed by setting aside the order dated 30. 12. 1985 passed by the Leave Reserve Deputy Collector, kolhapur in Tenancy Appeal No. 37 of 1985 and 41 of 1985 and the order of Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 19. 5. 1984 was maintained.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the petitioners are the purchasers of 80 Ares of land out of 1 Hector and 91 Ares from Gat No. 1222, situated at Village paragaon, Taluka Hatkanagale. They claim to have purchased 80 Ares of land by a registered conditional sale deed dated 26. 4. 1983 from respondent no. 4 - landlord and since then they are in possession of the said portion of land out of gat No. 1222.

(3.) IT is against this backdrop I heard learned counsel appearing for the parties for quite sometime, With the assistance of Mr. Kamble, learned counsel for the petitioners I went through the record and the impugned orders as also, the judgment of the Civil Court passed in Regular Civil suit No. 113/1984. Mr. Kambale contended that the tribunal was wrong in recording the findings that the tenants were in lawful possession of the entire land in question and that is not consistent with revenue record which clearly show that the name of the petitioners was entered in the kabjedar Column after they purchased 80 Ares of land and they were put in possession of the said portion of the land. In view thereof, according to Mr. Kamble, the tenant cannot be treated as "deemed tenant" as contemplated under section 4 of the Tenancy Act in respect of 80 Ares of land purchased by the petitioners. He placed heavy reliance on the findings recorded by the Civil Court in r. C. S. No. 113/1984 to contend that the petitioner was put in possession by the landlord on 26. 4. 1983. He further submitted that panchnama dated 15. 6. 1983 was misread by the authorities below for holding that the tenants were in possession of entire Gat no. 1222. The panchnama, according to Mr. Kamble, shows that the petitioner was in possession of only hut situated in the said Gat number. In so far as certificate issued by Warana Sahakari Pani puravatna Seva Sanstha, Pargaon dated 21. 5. 1983 is concerned, he submitted that it was wrongly relied upon by the tribunal to reach a conclusion that the water was being drawn by the tenants for the lands in dispute. According to Mr. Kambale, even the other material relied upon by MRT is not sufficient to hold that the tenants were in lawful possession of entire Gat No. 1222 and in particular 80 Ares of land purchased by registered sale deed dated 26. 4. 1983.