BHIMRAO Vs. HERAMB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition was originally heard by single Judge, i.e. Dharmadhikari, J. He found that to a certain extent inconsistent views have been expressed regarding the exact meaning and interpretation of S.43-1E of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. In view of this, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for referring it to the Division Bench and it is in this way that we are deciding the present writ petition.

(2.) Survey No. 870/2 admeasuring 15 acres and 22 gunthas situate at Ashta, Taluka Walwa, is the property in dispute. The present respondent 1 claimed that he is a serving member of the armed forces and that this property had fallen to his share. The property was in the possession of the present petitioners and respondents 2 to 5. In the original proceeding that has given rise to this writ petition, the present respondent 1 was the applicant and the present petitioners and respondents 2 to 5 were the respondents. In this background, it will be convenient to refer the parties by their names and not as petitioners-respondents or appellants-respondents.

(3.) As mentioned above, the present respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as Heramb) is serving as a member of the armed forces. Initially, the land was in the possession of three tenants viz., Tatoba, Rajaram and Lalsaheb, who were the respondents or opponents before the Deputy Collector. Tatoba is dead. His legal representatives have been brought on record. It would be convenient to refer these persons as tenants,