HASAN BIN SALAM Vs. MADHAVRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant/ex-landlord of the disputed agricultural land, is praying for quashment of the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 463/2002 decided on 31-1-2002. Respondent initiated proceeding under section 98(c) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for dispossession of appellant herein who was in unauthorised possession of agricultural land. According to respondent, his father was tenant of the agricultural land owned by appellant herein. Father of respondent was declared as protected tenant and ownership of the land stood transferred in view of provisions of section 38-E of the Act in favour of tenant i.e. father of petitioner on 25-5-1957. It is not disputed that tenant deposited the price of the land and as such, ownership of the land stood transferred in favour of father of respondent. It is further pointed out that father of respondent was in possession of the suit land however, later on he came to be dispossessed by the ex-landlord i.e. appellant herein. On demise of father of respondent, he initiated proceeding in the office of Additional Tahsildar, Parbhani, for recovery of possession of agricultural land under section 98 of the Act.

(2.) Initially, the additional Tahsildar allowed the application tendered by respondent and issued direction in respect of handing over of possession of land to respondent-tenant. The order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Parbhani was subject-matter of challenge at the instance of appellant-ex-landlord to the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani. The Deputy Collector by order dated 4-6-2001 set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and dismissed the application presented by tenant. While dismissing the application, the Deputy Collector directed cancellation of tenancy rights of the tenant. The order passed by the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Parbhani, was subjected to challenge by tenant before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal allowed revision application tendered by tenant and set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and restored the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar. The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was subject-matter of challenge in writ petition at the instance of appellant herein. Writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by order dated 31-1-2002.

(3.) Learned counsel for appellant vehemently contended that order passed by the learned Single Judge is erroneous and liable to be quashed and set aside. It is the contention of appellant that the application under section 98 of the Act tendered by respondent-tenant to the Tahsildar was not entertainable and the only remedy available to the tenant was under section 32 of the Act. It is further contention of appellant-ex-landlord that even otherwise application tendered by tenant under section 98 of the Act after lapse of about 45 years from the accrual of cause of action is not entertainable.