BHAGU Vs. SUNDERLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no dispute that the petitioners were tenants in respect of land Survey No.197 admeasuring 13 acres 3 gunthas situated at mouza Sungaon, district Buldana, and the respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the owners thereof. 8 acres 17 gunthas of land was resumed by the respondents landlords out of the said survey number for their personal cultivation. However, since the respondents landlords did not cultivate the said land personally, the petitioners applied under Sec.52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In pursuance of this application the land was restored in their possession on 25-4-1973.

(2.) The petitioners tenants gave a notice on 10-12-1973 under S.50 read with Sec.43(1) of the Act, making an offer for the purchase of the said land at the rate of 36 times of the rental value of the land. The respondents neither accepted the offer nor gave any reply to the said notice. They, however, filed an application on 5-8-1974 for possession of the said land under sec.36(2) read with sec.50 of the Act. The petitioners filed their written statement on 6-9-1974 and denied the claim of the respondents. According to the petitioners, the respondents were not entitled to resume the land in question since the petitioners had already made an offer for the purchase of the same on 12-10-1973 within one year from the commencement of their tenancy, i.e. from 25-4-1973. They further contended that their written statement be treated as an application for determination of the purchase price within the meaning of sec.43(2) of the Act.

(3.) The Additional Tahsildar, vide order dated 19th Nov. 1974, negatived the contention of the petitioners and held that the respondents were entitled for restoration of possession of the suit land under sec.36(2) read with sec.50 of the Act. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon, but the appeal also failed and hence they moved the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of revision, but the revision was also dismissed and hence they approached the High Court by way of writ petition. The matter came up for hearing before the Single Judge of this Court Jamdar, J., who after hearing the parties made a reference to the larger Bench, and hence this case has come before us.