PRATAP DAMODHAR DIVEKAR Vs. VITHAL KRISHNA SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ). Both these Writ Petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment, as they are between the same parties in relation to same suit land, which is agricultural land bearing Survey No. 115/2 and 115/3 situated at Parewadi, Taluka Karmala, District sholapur. The said lands were originally owned by damodar Divekar (hereinafter referred to as divekar" for the sake of convenience ). Survey no. 115/2 was in occupation of Krishna Shinde, whereas, Survey No. 115/3 was in occupation of jagannath Navle as tenants (hereinafter referred to as 'tenants' for the sake of convenience ).

(2.) ). What is relevant for our purpose to note is that proceedings under Section 84 of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were commenced in respect of the suit lands by the agricultural lands Tribunal, Karmala on the assumption that the tenants were in unauthorised occupation of the suit lands. Simultaneously, divekar, the landlords preferred application under section 84 of the Act for restoration of possesion of the suit lands on the assertion that they were about ten in number and had no agricultural land to sustain themselves. The said proceedings numbered as Tenancy Case No. 28 of 1998 were disposed of by the Assistant Collector, MHADA Division, Kuluwadi by decision dated January 22, 1999. The said authority took the view that in so far as land bearing Survey No. 115/2 is concerned, proceedings for determination of purchase price were initiated, but the same ended against the tenants on the finding that the tenants were holding land in excess of the ceiling limits, for which reason, they were not entitled to purchase the same. That view has attained finality with the rejection of the Writ Petition preferred by the tenants before this Court. In other words, purchase in favour of the tenants has become ineffective because of the said finding. The consequence of that declaration was one of vesting of the land in State Government by virtue of provisions of Section 32p of the Act and the land could be disposed only in terms of the said provisions as per the priority list.

(3.) IN so far as Survey No. 115/3 is concerned, it has been found that the sale of the said land in favour of tenant Navle effected in the year 1958 was invalid, being contrary to the requirements of the Act. That view has also attained finality. In other words, sale in respect of land being Survey no. 115/3 in favour of Navle has been invalidated by the competent Authority. The consequence of said declaration is, vesting of the land in the State government by virtue of Section 84c of the Act and such land can be disposed of only in terms Of sub-section (4) of Section 84c of the Act. It is on the aforesaid reasoning, the Assistant Collector took the view that there was no question of restoration of the land in favour of the landlords. Whereas, the land stood forfeited to Government, free from all encumbrances and became available for disbursal in accordance with the provisions of section 32p and 84c of the Act respectively. This decision was challenged by the tenants by way of revision Application No. MRT/sh/iii/9/90 (TNC. B. 68/90); Pune, before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal. Even the landlords filed separate revision Application before the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal being MRT S. H. V. 8/90 (TNC. B. 146/90)Pune 1. The Tribunal, however, disposed of both the Revision Applications by separate decisions. The Revision Application preferred by the tenants has been decided on July 1'8, 1990; whereas, the revision Application preferred by the landlords is decided on February 18, 1998. Both the decisions of Tribunal are subject matter of challenge in the respective Writ Petitions filed by the landlords divekar (Writ Petition No. 6527/98) and the Tenants (Wp 4416/90 ).