SUKA HARI Vs. LILABAI ONKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original landlord Gangaprasad Ramprasad filed an application for possession of land, namely, survey number 11, measuring 15 acres 26 gunthas, situated at village Matoda, Taluq Murtizapur, district Akola. The said application was initially decided by the Naib Tahsildar, Murtizapur by an order dated 31-12-1963. The Naib Tahsildar found that the lease in favour of tenant Suka was created by lease deed dated 4-10-1957 for the year 1957-58. The petitioner holds in all 15 acres 28 gunthas of land which is less than a family holding, that is, 28 acres. He further found that original petitioner Gangaprasad fulfilled all the conditions. However instead of ordering the resumption of whole of the suit land under section 36 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 referred to hereinafter as the Tenancy Act, he passed an order terminating the tenancy of Suka over survey number 11 to the extent of half the area of the land, that is, 7 acres 33 gunthas.

(2.) Being aggrieved by this order tenant Suka filed an appeal under section 107 of the Tenancy Act. The landholder, namely, Gangaprasad, did not file any appeal against the order passed by the Naib Tahsildar. In para 1 of the said order while reciting the facts of the case it was observed by the Special Deputy Collector that the Naib Tahsildar held that the landlord was entitled to the possession of the land to the extent of whole of the survey number. Obviously this observation was incorrect. However, he dismissed the appeal filed by the tenant holding that the order passed by the lower Court is correct.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order of the Special Deputy Collector the landlord filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal contending that the Special Deputy Collector as well as the tenancy Naib Tahsildar should have directed the resumption of the whole land. However, the learned Member held that the landholder is entitled to 9 acres 13 gunthas of land which was one-third of the family holding and which was more than half of the total holding leased by the landholder. In this view of the matter the learned Member modified the order passed by the Courts below and allowed the applicant-landlord to resume the land to the extent of 9 acres 13 gunthas. Against this order both the landlord and the tenant filed these writ petitions. Special Civil Application No. 1230 of 1969 has been filed by the tenant whereas Special Civil Application No. 211 of 1970 has been filed by the landholder. As both these Special Civil Applications have been filed against the same order they were heard together and are being disposed of by this judgment.