RAGHUNANDAN RAMCHANDRA LAHARIA Vs. VIJAY NARAYAN MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 227 of constitution of India, the petitioner, legal heir of alleged tenant Ramchandra challenges the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Akola refusing to fix purchase price by holding that the said predecessor was not the tenant as also the order in appeal passed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Akola and the order in Revision passed by maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur upholding both these orders. The respondents in writ petition are owners in their capacity as legal heirs of original owner Narayan.

(2.) The controversy superficially can be stated thus. Legal heirs of deceased ramchandra moved application on 7-9-1984 under section 46 of Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act, for fixation of purchase price before Tahsildar and president Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Akola contending that deceased ramchandra was in possession of agricultural fields survey number 22/1 and survey number 23/1 of mouza Kaulkhed, Tahasil and District Akola. The parties are concerned with land admeasuring 12-22 acres from these survey numbers. These survey numbers originally belonged to Narayan and legal heirs of ramchandra, contended that they have become owners because of provisions of sections 46 and 49 of Tenancy Act. He prayed for grant of certificate under section is 46, 48 and 49 of Tenancy Act. Application was opposed by legal heirs of Narayan who pointed out that Sub-Divisional Officer has already held that ramchandra was not the tenant and was not entitled to ask for fixation of purchase price. It is stated that this decision was reached in 1977-78 and thereafter owners took possession. They further pointed out that in said Revenue case 12/59 (27) /72-73 decided on 24-7-1974 it is held that Ramchandra is not the tenant and said decision is binding on his legal heirs. They also pointed out earlier decree for specific performance obtained by deceased Ramchandra and sale of 56 acres in his favour by Narayan as per that decree. The respondents even challenged legality of that sale deed and also Will executed by Ramchandra in favour of applicants before Tahsildar. However, it is not necessary to look into those aspects for the purposes of deciding present petition. Tahsildar decided the matter on 13-2-1989 and found that tenancy is not established. He also found that the documents of Kabulait Patta dated 8-2-1944 and 13-4-1947 executed by deceased Narayan in favour of deceased Ramchandra were in fact money lending transaction. Tahsildar further found that applicants before him did not bring the land under cultivation and agriculture is not the only source of their livelihood. No details of any lease money paid by them to landlord/owner were furnished. In view of this he declined to fix purchase price. Raghunandan son of Ramchandra challenged this verdict of Tahsildar by filing appeal under section 107 of tenancy Act before Sub-Divisional Officer. Appellate Authority has decided the appeal on 19-2-1990 and recorded a finding that as per registered document of lease dated 30-4-1947 the tenure was ten years which expired in 1956 and thereafter Ramchandra was in unlawful possession of land in question. This authority also found that the controversy is concluded by order dated 24-7-1974 in which Ramchandra was held not to be the tenant of 12.22 acres. It also found that they have already purchased 56 acres of land and ceiling limit under the maharashtra Agricultural Land (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 was 54 acres and hence they were not entitled to purchase/get more land. The Sub-Divisional officer therefore maintained the order of Tahsildar. This order came to be challenged by Raghunandan son of Ramchandra in Revision Application 37/1990 before MRT at Nagpur under section 111 of Tenancy Act, 1958. Learned member of MRT made reference to earlier litigation and found that in Second appeal decided on 6/7 August, 1969, decree for specific performance was given to deceased Ramchandra to the extent of only 56 acres of land as per provisions of section 89 (1) of Tenancy Act and it was also executed. The MRT found that the agreement of which specific performance was sought was for 68.22 acres and as purchase of 12.22 acres of land was not permitted in view of provisions of section 89 (1) , Ramchandra or his heirs could not attempt to purchase said 12.22 acres by invoking section 46 or 49-A of Tenancy Act. Learned Member felt that what is prohibited under section 89 (1) cannot be permitted to be achieved indirectly by invoking other provisions of Tenancy Act. He further found that in the process there was surrender of his tenancy rights by deceased Ramchandra in favour of landlord Narayan and, landlord is entitled to obtain possession thereof in view of provisions of sections 20 and 21 of Tenancy Act. He therefore dismissed the revision. It is this order along with other two orders of lower authorities which form the subject-matter of challenge in present petition.

(3.) These facts in-turn demonstrate that what appears, superficially, to be simple is not so and reference to earlier litigation between parties is called for. Fortunately, there is no dispute between parties insofar as these facts are concerned. There is a judgment dated 6/7-8-1969 delivered by the learned single judge of this Court (Hon'ble Justice Shri D. B. Padhye) in Second Appeal 367/1958 and Special Civil Application No. 61/1968 between parties. The facts can be conveniently drawn from this judgment. The dispute in Second Appeal was about 68.22 acres of land and deceased Narayan was appellant while deceased ramchandra was respondent. Narayan was tenure holder of these agricultural lands and Ramchandra was lessee. On 30-4-1947 Narayan and Ramchandra entered into an agreement for sale whereby Ramchandra agreed to purchase entire 68.22 acres of land for consideration of Rs. 6000/- only. On same day there was another agreement between parties for period of 10 years for lease of these lands and ramchandra was to be the lessee thereof. It appears that in year 1950 Narayan gave notice to Ramchandra to purchase all lands within one month but Ramchandra in reply asserted that under the terms of agreement he was not liable to do so and he could purchase it till 31st March, 1957. On 24th October, 1956 Ramchandra gave notice to Narayan to execute sale deed and when latter declined, a suit for specific performance vide Civil Suit No. 15a/1957 came to be filed and it was dismissed on 25-1-1958. Ramchandra filed Regular Civil Appeal and only point argued in that appeal was whether suit was filed within three years of the time fixed for performance of contract. The District Judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit for specific performance. The Second Appeal 367/1958 was preferred by Narayan against this appellate decree. It is to be noted that the Tenancy Act mentioned above came into force on 30-12-1958.