LAWS(BOM)-2015-1-73

PANDHARINATH PANDURANG MATE Vs. RADHABAI MAHADEO MATE

Decided On January 22, 2015
Pandharinath Pandurang Mate Appellant
V/S
Radhabai Mahadeo Mate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the order dated 13 November 1996 made by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT"), Pune setting aside order dated 31 December 1992 made by the Assistant Collector, Pune and remanding the application made by the respondents herein under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("said Act") for reconsideration.

(2.) The petitioners inter alia claim to be tenants in respect of property surveyed under No. 18 Pot Hissa No. 1/11 which admeasures 0.34 Ares, Khadakwasla, Pune ("suit property"). On 1 April 1972 proceedings were initiated by Ramchandra Pansare under Sections 25 and 29 of the said Act for resumption of possession which was dismissed on 13 July 1992. Pansare preferred appeal no. 457 of 1972, which was dismissed by the SDO on 31 December 1972. The petitioners, thereupon initiated proceedings under Section 32G for the purchase of the suit property. The same were allowed by the Tahsildar by order dated 1 February 1979, by way of determination of purchase price. Consequent upon payment of purchase price, the petitioner was issued certificate dated 30 September 1980 under Section 32M of the said Act certifying that the petitioners shall be deemed to be purchasers of the land under Section 32M of the said Act.

(3.) After the period of almost seven years, respondent no. 1 herein made application under Section 32F of the said Act, which came to be numbered as tenancy case No. 12 of 1987 stating that the suit property in fact belong to Kasabai Tukaram Mate, who was a widow on tiller's day i.e. 1 April 1957. The said Kasabai expired on 24 December 1971 and respondent no. 1 Radhabai Mate, is her legal heir, of which there is a due note in the village records. Within two years from the death of Kasabai, the petitioners gave no intimation with regard to purchase of the suit property. Accordingly, the petitioners have lost right to purchase the suit property. Correspondingly right has accrued to Radhabai to resume possession over the suit land.