RESIDENT OF KARANJKHOP Vs. JAGANNATH EKNATH WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and dated March 1, 1988 in Revision no. MRT. NS.-IX-6 of 1984 (TEN. B. 226 of 1984) Pune. Briefly stated, the lands in question are bearing gat No. l226-A, admeasuring 2 acres and Gat no. 1226-B, admeasuring 2 acres 37 juntas at karanjkhop, Taluka Korean, District Satire. The respondents are the landlords in respect of the said lands. The Petitioner claims to be the tenant in lawful cultivation of the suit lands prior to tillers' day i. e. 1st April 1957. The Petitioner had filed the application under Section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for declaration that he was tenant in respect of the suit lands. Suffice it to observe that the said proceedings concluded in favour of the Petitioner by holding that the Petitioner was tenant in respect of the suit lands prior to 1st April 1957. That issue was taken right up to this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 576 of 1960 and this Court, by its Judgment dated August 30, 1960, answered the same in favour of the Petitioner. Before this Court, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the landlords that the Petitioner had in fact surrendered the suit lands by Verde dated 30th april 1955. Even that contention has been rejected by this Court by observing that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the Deputy collector that the said Verde was not proved to have been executed by the Petitioner. In other words, the issue as to whether the Petitioner was tenant in respect of the suit lands as on 1st April 1957, has attained finality by the decision of this court. As a consequence of that declaration, petitioner initiated proceedings under Section 32g of the Act for fixation of purchase price in respect of the suit lands. The present Writ petition emanates from the said proceedings. The first Authority namely the Agricultural Lands tribunal and Tahsildar considered the issue of determination of purchase price of the suit lands and determined the total purchase price at rs. 8,394/ -. Suffice it to observe that this decision has been confirmed by the Appellate authority, by Judgment and Order dated 4th July 1984. Against this decision, Respondents carried the matter in Revision before the Tribunal. Surprisingly, the Tribunal re-opened the issue of tenancy of the Petitioner and proceeded to hold that the Petitioner was not lawful tenant as on 1st april 1957. For taking that view, the Tribunal chose to rely upon the purported Surrender Deed verde of 1935. The Tribunal proceeded to do so, clearly overlooking the finding reached in the earlier proceedings under Section 70 (b) of the Act, which culminated with the decision of this Court, rejecting the very same contention raised on behalf of the Respondents before this Court as referred to earlier. On such fallacious reasoning, the tribunal proceeded to set-aside the order passed by the Authorities below holding that the Petitioner was not entitled to purchase the suit lands. This judgment and Order of the Tribunal dated 1st March 1988 is subject matter of challenge before this court.

(2.) After having considered the rival submissions, I have no hesitation in taking the view that the Tribunal has not only exceeded its jurisdictions but the view taken by the Tribunal is, to say the least, perverse. I say so because the issue as to whether the Petitioner was tenant in respect of the suit lands or not, was finally concluded with the decision of this Court dated august 30, 1960 in Special Civil Application No. 576 of 1960. The very argument was raised on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner was not tenant in the suit lands on 1st April 1957, having regard to the Verde dated 30th April 1955 but that contention did not find favour with this Court and has been rejected by the Division Bench of this court. The Tenancy Authority while considering application under Section 326 of the Act for determining the purchase price of the suit lands, was obviously bound by the said finding and that finding would equally bind the parties to the proceedings. It was, therefore, not open to the tribunal to permit the Respondents to question the title of the Petitioner as tenant in respect of the suit lands, which was already concluded in the earlier round of litigation under Section 70 (b) of the Act. This is the manifest error committed by the Tribunal, whereas, the two authorities below rightly confined the adjudication to determination of the purchase price in respect of the suit lands and on the basis of the materials on record, proceeded to hold that the purchase price in respect of the suit lands would be Rs. 8,394/- and proceeded to pass consequential directions in that behalf. No fault can be found with the said decision passed by the two authorities, below. Accordingly, this Petition should succeed. The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the Tribunal is therefore set-aside and the one passed by the agricultural Lands Tribunal and Tahsildar, Korean dated 30th November 1976, as confirmed by the sub-Divisional Officer, Karanjkhop Division, Taluka korean, District Sahara by Judgement dated 4th july 1984 are confirmed and restored.

(3.) In other words, the application under section 326 of the Act filed by the Petitioner, succeeds on the terms stated in the aforesaid two orders passed by the Authorities below.