SURESHCHANDRA PRAKASHCHANDRA MEHTA Vs. ANANDRAO BHIMSHANKAR THOBADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal dated July 26, 1988 in Revision no. MRT-SH-VII-26/85 (TNC. B. 218/85 ). Briefly stated, the lands in question are agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 25a and, 25b situated at village Parmeshwar Pimpri, in Solapur district. Late Raoji Bapuchand Mehta was the original owner in respect of the suit land. The petitioners claim to be successors in interest of the original owner. The Respondents, on the other hand, claim that their predecessor bhimashankar Sidramappa Thobade, was the tenant in the suit lands. It is not in dispute that partition suit was instituted between the heirs of late Mr. Raoji Bapuchand Mehta in which proceedings, the Civil Court was pleased to appoint Court Receiver. The predecessor of the respondents, Bhimashankar, is stated to have been appointed by the Court Receiver to continue to cultivate the suit lands on ek sali lease. The civil proceedings between the heirs of late Raoji mehta were finally disposed of consequent to which the Court Receiver handed over possession of the suit lands to the Petitioners on 26thjune 1974. It is the case of the Petitioners that the tenants failed to give intimation to the petitioners within 1 year from 26th June 1974, which has resulted in statutory purchase of the suit lands in favour of the tenants becoming ineffective. On that basis, an application came to be filed before the Tenancy authority by the petitioners for issuance of order against the tenants to restore possession of the suit lands to the Petitioners. In the application for possession, two grounds have been asserted. The first ground is that the tenants are in possession of land in excess of ceiling limits, for which reason, they are not entitled to purchase the suit land and the purchase has become ineffective. The second reason stated in the application is that the tenants have failed to send intimation within one year from the date of Petitioners taking over possession of the suit lands on 26th June 1974, as a result of which the purchase has become ineffective. This application was tried before the tenancy authority and the tenancy authority, by judgment and order dated March 3, 1977, allowed the application preferred by the Petitioners answering both the aforesaid grounds in favour of the Petitioners. The matter was carried in appeal. Even the appeal Court answered both the grounds infavour of the Petitioners. However, for the first time the revisional Court set aside both the decisions, and, instead, dismissed the application preferred by the Petitioners on the reasoning that the tenants have become deemed purchasers on the tillers day i. e. , 1st April 1957 and, therefore, the question of sending intimation did not arise in the fact situation of the present case. Insofar as the ground of holding with the tenants in excess of ceiling limit is concerned, the revisional Court also proceeded to reverse the finding recorded by the two authorities below. It is this decision, which is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

(2.) MR. Walawalkar, for the Petitioners, contends that the Tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the finding of fact reached by the two authorities below. He submits that the reason in relation to both the grounds referred to above as recorded by the tribunal cannot be sustained and the conclusion reached by the two authorities will have to be affirmed.

(3.) ON the other hand, Counsel for the respondents-tenants has supported the conclusion reached by the Tribunal contending that there is no reason to interfere with the said conclusion having regard to the fact situation of the present case.