RANGNATH PANDHARINATH GOSAVI Vs. SAKHARAM SHIVA BHOSALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, Pune dated December 12, 1985 in revision No. 1 MRT-NS-V-10/83. The land in question is Get No. 1 and 79 situated at Nigadi, Tahsil koregaon. The Petitioners claim to be landlords in respect of the suit land, whereas, the Respondents are the tenants thereof. Since the Respondents were, in occupation of the suit land as tenants on the tillers day, the Respondents became deemed purchaser. In that backdrop, the Authority proceeded to fix the purchase price in respect of the suit lands, However, the purchase price was not paid by the Respondents tenants inspire of repeated reminders sent by the Petitioners. Having regard to the continuous representations, made by the Petitioners, the Additional Tahsildar and agricultural Lands Tribunal, Koregaon proceeded to issue following communication to the Petitioners on 3rd August 1977. The same reads thus:-

(2.) THE Respondents, being aggrieved by the observation made in the last sentence of the said communication that the purchase will be declared ineffective, preferred. appeal before the sub-Divisional Officer The Appellate Authority, on examining the relevant provisions of the Act, found that it was not open to straightaway declare the purchase ineffective, unless necessary procedure prescribed by the relevant provisions was to be completed.- In the circumstances? the appellate Authority allowed the appeal preferred by the Respondents and remanded the matter to the first Authority to decide the same in accordance with law, on merits, in the light of observations made in the said order, Against the said remand order, Petitioners carried the matter in Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, The tribunal, on examining the rival contentions', was pleased to affirm the approach of the Appellate authority and declined to interfere in the Revision application. The Revision Application accordingly came to be dismissed on 12th December 1985 by the impugned Judgment and Order and the remand directed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present Writ Petition.

(3.) MR. SAIL for the Petitioners contends that there is no provision in the Act whereby, the grievance made by the Petitioners regarding non-payment of the determined purchase price can be recovered from the tenant, and the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, much less, affirmed by the Revisional Authority to decide the sale effective or ineffective under Section 33-M of the act, Was inappropriate. According to him, no such declaration could be granted in exercise of powers under Section 32-M of the Act. On the above submissions, learned Counsel contends that neither the order of remand, nor the decision passed by the revisional Authority can be sustained. These are the only submissions advanced before me.