HARIBHAU Vs. MAHARASHTRA RENENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution raises an interesting and important point under section 21 of the New Tenancy Act (Bombay Act No. 99 of 1958 ).

(2.) PETITIONER No. 1 Haribhau was a landlord of survey no. 7/1, area 2 acres 10 gunthas, of village Khadatgaon in Khamgaon taluq of Buldana district. Respondents Nos. 4 and 5 to this petition, Sukhdeo and Waman sons of Raoji, were the tenants of this field. They executed a deed of surrender on 7th of February 1958 and delivered possession of the field to Haribhau. Thereafter Harbhau sold the field to petitioner no. 2 Rama Tukaram under a registered sale-deed dated 20th of March 1958. It is an admittted position that the surrender effected by Sukhdeo Raoji and Waman Raoji on 7-2-1958 was verified and was found to be valid by the Tahsildar on 26-6-1958 under Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act. Petitioner No. 2 Rama Tukaram continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of this property thereafter.

(3.) ON 3rd March 1960 an Officer with the Revenue Department, called the Tenancy Renenue Inspector, made a report against Haribhau (petitioner no. 1) to the Tahsildar alleging that Haribhau had obtained possession of survey no. 7/1 by surrender from the protected lessees Sukhdeo Raoji and Waman Raoji on 8-2-1958. , We have taken this information from the order of the Naib-Tahsildar dated 7th of January 1961, though the proceedings have been treated as falling under section 21 of the New Tenancy Act. The report was that the landlord Haribhau, who had obtained possession of thefield as a result of surrender, had failed to give intimation in the prescribed manner and in the prescribed form to the Tahsildar within three months from the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 (No. 99 of 1958), as required by section 21 (3) of that Act.