SIDAPPA RAMA PATIL Vs. SATTUR LAXMAN KOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11. 12. 1981 passed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, in Revision nos. MRT KP 243/80 and MRT KP 244/80. Briefly stated the land in question is survey no. 72 admeasuring 4 acres 7 gunthas at Village Saroli, Tal : Ghadingilaj, Dist : Kolhapur. The grandfather of the petitioner and respondent no. 4 were shown in the Revenue Record as cultivating suit land alongwith Bhairu Shinde during period 1946 to 1950, The petitioners claim that their predecessor was protected tenant and being so proceeding under Section 32g of the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1943 ( hereinafter-referred to as said Act) were initiated, It appears from the record that proceeding under Section 326 of the said act were initiated in respect of said land in which the agricultural Land Tribunal determined the purchase price to be paid by the tenants. That order was passed on March 26, 1962. It is seen that the petitioners paid requisite amount towards purchase pries on March 26, 1962, where after 1963, as well as certificate under section 32m of the said act was issued in favour of the petitioner's father. Issuance of such certificate was conclusive proof of purchase of the suit land by the petitioner's father and said Bhairu, It is seen that inspite of issuance of certificate under section 32m of the act in favour of the petitioner's predecessor and said 8hairu the Addl. Tahsildar ALT for reasons best known to him initiated proceeding under section 32g in respect of the same suit land which was however, dropped by judgment and order dated December 31,1972 holding that the so called tenants users cultivating the suit land in capacity of mortgagees and the amount of loan was completely satisfied and that there was no relation of land lard and tenants existing. The purchasers taking clue from this order, the correctness of which will be addressed later, chose to prefer an appeal on February 16, 1974 - questioning the correctness of the order dated February 20, 1962 passed by the ALT, Ghadingilaj, determining purchase price in favour of the petitioners and said Bhairu,, It is common around that this appeal as was filed almost after more than 10 years, was not accompanied by any formal application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal nor such prayer was made in the memo of appeal. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the Appellate Authority has condoned the delay in filing the said appeal before entertaining the

(2.) BE that as it may, as the subsequent order was passed by the ALT on December 31, 1972 which amounted to re-opening the proceedings which had already concluded in favour of the petitioners and said Bhairu, the petitioners questioned the said order of the Tahsildar dated December-31, 1972 by an independent appeal.

(3.) BOTH the said appeals cams to be disposed of by common judgment and order of the Special Land Acquisition Officer no. 3, Kolhapur dated August 29, 1980. By that order the appellate authority allowed the appeal preferred by the landlord and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners. Against this decision the petitioners carried the matter in revision by filing two separate revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Instead of deciding the core issue raised on behalf of the petitioners, the M. K. T. proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence on record and affirmed the view taken by the appellate Authority and consequently dismissed both the revision applications preferred by the petitioners. This decision is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.