ANANDA SADASHIV KADAM Vs. KARBHARI VITHAL PANSARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-landlord has impugned the order of Revisional authority dated 30-03-1989. By that order, the matter has been remanded back to the Trial court for ascertaining the holding of the tenant on the tiller's day and for proper and correct calculation of the area as set out in the body of the judgment as the holding of tenant on the tiller's day is relevant. In the instant case, on the postponed date i. e. 01-04-1957 the landlord was a minor. The criticism by the learned counsel for the petitioner is after coming to the conclusion that mutation entries relied by the respondents-tenants are of no assistance to the tenant it was incumbent on the tenant to prove the holding on the postponed tiller's day. It is submitted that considering this finding it was not open to the revisional Authority to remand the matter and to that extent the order suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) To appreciate the said submission, it will be necessary to refer to some relevant facts. The original tenant was one Mr. Vithal. The present respondents are his legal representatives. The petitioner- landlord was minor on 01-04-1957. Hence, the purchase date was postponed. The tahsildar in the enquiry under section 32p (2) (b) of B. T. and A. L. Act, 1948 was pleased to hold that the respondents-tenants on the postponed tiller's day was holding jirayat lands to the extent of 46 acres 33 gunthas as the owner and 10 acres 92 gunthas as the tenant. The total holding works out to 74 acres 5 gunthas. In the mutation record, the ceiling limit was 48 acres. It was, therefore, held that the tenant was entitled to purchase the area of 2 acres 7 gunthas from the landlord and was not entitled to possess 26 acres 5 gunthas. The tenant aggrieved preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority was pleased to dismiss the appeal by its order dated 27-11 - 1987. From the above fact, it is clear that it was held that the tenant is entitled to purchase 2 acres 7 gunthas.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents- tenants the learned counsel submits that in so far as the land of the tenant is concerned, there was a partition effected iifthe year 1956 and the said partition was reflected in the mutation record. In terms of mutation record, according to the learned counsel, the tenant was entitled to only 21 acres of land as owner. It is, therefore, submitted that the findings of the trial and Appellate Courts that the tenant possess 46 acres 33 gunthas of land as owner is perverse. The said orders of Tahsildar and appellate Court therefrom disclose errors of law apparent on the face of the record. Under the circumstances, this court should not interfere with the impugned order of the revisional Authority in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.