SHANKAR DAJI VHANALKAR Vs. VISHNU DAJI VHANALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition takes exception to the judgment and Order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal Camp, at Kolhapur dated September 25, 1990 in Revision Application No. MRT. KP. 99 of 1987.

(2.) Briefly stated, the lands in question are r. S. Nos. 157 and 138 admeasuring 0. 23 gunthas and 28 acres 2 gunthas respectively situated at Village chande Taluka Radhanagari. The Petitioners claim that they were cultivating the suit land as tenants prior to 1st April 1957 and were entitled to purchase the same as deemed purchasers by operation of law. It is seen that proceedings under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') were initiated. The predecessor of the Petitioners did not show willingness to purchase the suit land, for which reason, the same were dropped and proceedings under Section 32p of the Act were to be started by order dated 22nd December 1966. In proceedings under Section 32p of the Act order came to be passed on 20th April 1974 directing the tenants to restore possession of the suit land to the landlord. Against -that -decision, tenants carried the matter in two separate appeals alleging that the statement of their predecessor of unwillingness to purchase was falsely recorded and he had not made such statement at all. The tribunal, by order dated October 12, 1977 remanded the matter to the Trial Court to decide the same afresh and in particular, to ascertain the nature of land whether was agricultural land, grassy land or otherwise, and whether the provisions of the Act were applicable to such land. The Trial Court has adverted to the evidence adduced on record by the respective parties which mentions that out of 28 acres of land, some portion was under cultivation and the tenants were taking crop rotationally. The first Authority in its decision dated 2nd February 1980 has taken the view that on major portion of the land, grass grows naturally, for which reason, the lands were excepted from the application of provisions of Sections 32 to 32r of the Act.

(3.) This decision was challenged before the appellate Court. Even the Appellate Court affirmed the same view in its decision dated 31st December 1986. Although it has adverted to the evidence at page 106 on record that one acre land was in cultivation of paddy, 2 acres of Nation, ground nut one acre and 4 to 5 acres and the rest was fallow; notwithstanding this, the Appellate authority proceeded to hold that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to entire land as the major portion thereof was fallow and grass land. The tenants carried the matter in revision and the revisions Authority has affirmed the same view taken by the two authorities below. The grievance before this Court on behalf of the Petitioners is that admittedly, there was evidence on record, both documentary and oral to show that certain portion of the land was under cultivation, where agricultural activity was carried on, although the major portion was naturally grass grown land. It is contended that assuming that the Petitioners tenants have failed to establish that the major portion of the land was not naturally grown grass land or was used for grazing their catties, even so, there is no reason why the authorities below could have ignored the evidence on record to the extent the agricultural activity was in vogue on the portion of the land on or before 1st April 1957. It is submitted that at least to the extent of such land, the tenants were entitled for appropriate relief. To support this submission, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court reported in 2004 (1) Mh. L. J. 285 in the case of kisen Ramchandra Kumbhar and Ors. vs. Kashinath banyu Tali and Ors.