LAXMAN BALIRAM GHUNARE Vs. RANDHIR DINKAR DESHMUKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are four connected writ petitions, which can he conveniently disposed of by this judgment. In Writ Petition No. 1759 of 1980, the petitioner is a tenant in respect of the fields survey No. 4 area 14.16 acres of village Mustafapur, Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati. In Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1980, the petitioner is the tenant of the suit field survey No. 9, admeasuring 14.33 acres, of village Mustafapur, Tq. Daryapur, District Amravati. In writ petition No. 1945 of 1980 the petitioner is the tenant of field Survey No. 5, admeasuring 14.29 acres of village Mustafapur, Tahsil Daryapur, District Amravati. In respect of writ petition No. 1946 of 1980 the petitioner is the tenant of field Survey No. 8, admeasuring 13.30 acres of the aforesaid village. The original owner of the aforesaid fields was one Laxmibai Deshmukh the grandmother of the respondent. She executed a will on 2 -3 -1973 bequeathing all the aforesaid fields in favour of the respondent, who was then minor. The said Laxmibai died on 3 -3 -1973.

(2.) THE petitioners filed applications under Sections 41, 46 and 49(A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act) on 20 -4 -1976 for statutory transfer of ownership of the suit fields in their names and for determination of purchase price. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal consolidated all the four applications and by its common order dated 31 -8 -1976 the Additional Tahsildar rejected the applications filed by the petitioners/tenants and the proceedings for transfer of ownership were dropped. The petitioners/tenants preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who by his order dated 23 -3 -1979 allowed the appeals, holding that the petitioners are entitled to become statutory owners of the suit field on 1 -4 -1963 and,' therefore, remanded the matter for fixation of purchase price In the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The respondent -landlord, therefore, preferred the revision applications before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal against the common order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer in these cases. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 7 -11 -1979 set aside the order of the Sub Divisional Officer and restored the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/tenants have preferred the instant writ petitions in this Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners/tenants has urged before me that the date of statutory ownership cannot be postponed till the disability of the successor -in -title of the original landlord also ceases. In support of his contention he has relied upon the Division Bench Decision of this Court in the case of Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis v. Mahadu Pundlik Gangurde ( : 1980 MhLJ 359). The learned counsel for the respondent has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in Umabai's case (cited supra), in support of his contention that the date of statutory ownership would again stand postponed in view of the minority of the respondent. The facts in the said case were that the interest of the original landlord who was a widow was inherited by her three daughters. One of the daughters who inherited the interest of the original landlord was also a widow. This Court held in the said case that if one of the daughters is a widow, her share does not stand transferred to the tenant during her life time in view of Section 41(2) of the Tenancy Act. It is clear from the said decision that this Court was considering the effect of Section 41(2) of the Tenancy Act or in other words the transfer of statutory ownership under Section 46 under which the condition of transfer of ownership is that the tenant must be entitled to purchase the land from his landlord. The learned counsel for the petitioners however, has contended that these cases are not under Section 46 but, according to him, these cases fell under Section 49 -A of the Tenancy Act which is applicable notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 41 and 46 of the Tenancy Act. I find much substance in the contention raised by him. Section 49 -A(l) of the Tenancy Act confers rights of statutory ownership notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41 or 46 thereof. The provisions of Section 41(2) in respect of the disabled landlords cannot, therefore, affect the conferral of the rights of ownership under Section 49 -A of the Tenancy Act. The exception carved out to the conferral of statutory rights of ownership as on 1 -4 -1963 is under Section 49 -A(3) of the Tenancy Act. Under section 49 -A(l) the tenant becomes the statutory owner on and from 1 -4 -1963. However, sub -section (3) of Section 49 -A provides that "where the landlord, belonging to any of the categories specified in sub -section (2) of Section 38, has not given notice of termination of tenancy in accordance with the said sub -section (2) or sub -section (3) of Section 39 -A or has given such notice but has not made an application thereafter under Section 3d for possession, such tenant shall be deemed to be the full owner of the land held by him on the expiry of the period specified in subsection (3) of Section 39 -A".