VISHNU GANESH JOSHI Vs. DANG SEVA MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been referred to the Division Bench by the learned single Judge (Sawant, J.) because according to the learned Judge the decision in Sakinabibi v. Tukaram (1979 Mah LJ 302), which was also a decision of the learned single Judge of this Court, required reconsideration. In Sakinabibi's case the larned Judge (Pendse, J.) has taken the view that in an inquiry under Section 32P (2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") there are only two restrictions on the right of the landlord contemplated by the provisions of Section 15 (2) of the Act. These restrictions, according to the learned Judge are : (1) that the land should be resumed for the purpose of either cultivating personally or for non agricultural purpose and (2) that the land should be resumed only to the extent of the ceiling area. The learned Judge held that the other restrictions in Sections 31 and 31 A of the Act could not be read into Section 15 (2) of the Act.

(2.) The facts in this petition are not in dispute. The field in question is survey No. 41/1 having an area of 8 acres 19 gunthas excluding the Pot Kharaba area of 1 acre 21 gunthas which originally belonged to two persons Vithal and Vishnu. The said filed was cultivated by a trust called Dang Seva Mandal, Nasik ..... tenant was declared ineffective under Section 32 G (3) of the Act on 13th February 1963. Almost after about ten years, one at the landlords applied to the Tahsildar for starting a proceeding under Section 32 P of the Act. In that proceeding the Tahsildar held that one-half of the land should be restored to the landlords according to their respective shares. This order was however set aside. Later on, on remand the Tahsildar once again went into the question as to whether the surivving landlord, the other landlord having been dead by that time, was entitled to, get the land surrendered under Section 32 p of the Act. The Tahsildar took the view that it was essential for the land lord to prove that the income from the land in question of which he was entitled to take possession was the principal source of his maintenance. On facts he found that the income from the cultivation of the land in question would be the principal source of the landlord's maintenance. He, therefore, ordered under Section 32 P (2) (c) of the Act that possession of the land should be restored to the landlord.

(3.) The tenant challenged this order by an appeal which was decided by the Assistant Collector, Nasik Division, Nasik. The Assistant Collector took the view that the total income of the landlord from the sugarcane cultivation was about Rs.20,000/- annually in addition to his salary income of Rs. 3, 744/-per annum. The income from the said land was found to be Rs. 1,500/- and the Assistant Collector, therefore held that the income from the suit land would not be the principal source of maintenance of the landlord. Taking the view that the condition in Section 31 A (c) of the Act is not satisfied, he reversed the order of the additional Tahsildar. The landlord's application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal also came to be rejected and the Tribunal Confirmed the view of the Assistant Collector that the condition in Section 31 A (c) of the Act was required to be satisfied by the landlord. The order of the Tribunal does not disclose the figures of the comparative income from different sources of the landlord. The landlord has now filed this petition against the said order of the Tribunal.