(1.) ALL these three matters are in respect of the property being Gat No. 174 admeasuring 2 hector 83. 9 Ares situated at Village Tevurvadi, tal. Chandgad, District Kolhapur arising between the same parties and thus are disposed of by the present common judgement. The learned counsel for both the sides have agreed that the decision in writ Petition No. 6996 of 2005 shall govern the other Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005 and second appeal No. 257 of 2004.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ petition is claiming to be a tenant in possession and it is his case that he was inducted as a tenant prior to 1988 in terms of the provision of The Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and since 1988 he is cultivating the suit land till today. The original owner of the said property being Domiyav Kaitan shirodkar filed a suit in Civil Court being No. 116 of 1988 for perpetual injunction. According to the petitioner, the said suit came to be dismissed and no appeal was preferred therefrom. Thus, the order and judgement in Civil Suit No. 116 of 1988 has become final. It is the case of the petitioner that in 1989 the Survey Officer acknowledged that the petitioner is in possession of the said property and recorded the name of the petitioner in 7/12 extract as the tenant in possession of the suit property. It is the case of the petitioner that sometime in or about 1997 the said deceased sold the land to respondent no. 1 being Tanaji satuppa Vaghamare. In 1998 the respondent no. 1 obstructed the possession of the petitioner and therefore the petitioner has filed the suit being civil Suit No. 27 of 1998 interalia claiming declaration that he is in possession of the property and is a lawful tenant and injunction that the petitioners possession should be protected and he should not be dispossessed and his possession should not be obstructed. In 1998 the petitioner also filed an application under the provision of section 70 (B) of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948 before the Tahsildar claiming to be a tenant in respect of the suit property and for the determination of the issue whether the petitioner is a tenant or not under the provision of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1948. By order dt. 14. 8. 01, the tahsildar after enquiry allowed the application of the petitioner and declared the petitioner as a tenant. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred being appeal no. 19 of 2001. By an order dt. 22. 7. 02 the appeal was allowed. Order of tahsildar was set aside and the petitioners application of declaration of tenant has been rejected. The petitioner thereafter moved a revisional Application being Revisional Application no. 23 of 2002. By an order dt. 25. 8. 05 the divisional Commissioner, Pune has dismissed the said application against which the said writ petition being 6996 of 2005 is filed interalia claiming that the dismissal of the revision was bad in law and the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a tenant in respect of the suit property.
(3.) SIMULTANEOUSLY, the proceeding under the land Revenue Code was also going on. The respondent no. 1 being the petitioner in Writ petition No. 4536 of 2005 purchased the property by registered sale deed dt. 21. 4. 97 and applied for entering his name for acquiring right of the suit property and his name was entered by mutation entry no. 369 dt. 2. 9. 87. By an order dt. 26. 6. 98 passed by the Mandal Adhikari Office, Kowad, Tal. Chandgad, the said Mutation Entry of respondent no. 1 was cancelled and thereafter an appeal was preferred before the Sub Divisional Officer who by an order and Judgement dt. 26. 1. 03 set aside the order of the mandal Adhikari dt. 26. 6. 98 and sanctioned the mutation Entry no. 369 dt. 2. 9. 97. On 6. 12. 03 the petitioner preferred an appeal before the additional Commissioner, Pune being Second Appeal no. 58 of 2003 and by an order dt. 6. 12. 03 the said second Appeal was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter preferred the revisional application before the Assistant Commissioner, Pune challenging the order dt. 6. 12. 03 and by an order dt. 12. 4. 05 the assistant Commissioner Pune allowed the Revision application and has set aside the mutation entry no. 369 dt. 2. 9. 97 in favour of the respondent no. 1 whose name was entered in the Revenue Record pursuant to the purchase of property from the original owner. It is this order of the Divisional commissioner, Pune which is the subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 4536 of 2005.