KRISHNA BAPU PATIL Vs. JAGADISH BAPUSO GHORPADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the orders passed by the authorities rejecting the petitioners application under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "act" ).

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts which have given rise to this petition are :-We are concerned with three pieces of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 169/2, 193 and 170/1 situated at Village Top, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur. There is no dispute that the petitioners were the tenants in respect of the said lands which belonged to the respondents. The respondents obtained an Exemption Certificate under section 88-C of the Act and on the strength of the said Certificate they terminated the tenancy of the petitioners and applied for possession under section 33-B on the ground that they require the lands for their personal cultivation. It is not necessary to deal with the proceedings under section 33-B in detail but suffice it to say that finally the application was granted and an order was made for restoration of the ? land to the respondents. In pursuance of the order passed under section 33-B, the respondents took out an Execution Application. Now there is no dispute that in execution the petitioners were wrongly dispossessed on March 21, 1978 of the entire land although the order was restricted to only ? portion. It appears that the petitioners had filed an execution appeal but the same was dismissed on March 24, 1982. The petitioners thereafter filed the present proceedings under section 32-G, for fixing the price of the lands contending inter alia that in view of the order passed under section 33-B, of the Act for restoration of possession of the ? portion of the land they have become deemed purchasers in respect of the remaining half land which is allowed to be retained by them in view of the proviso to section 33-C (1) and as such they are entitled to purchase the said land in accordance with provisions of section 32-G.

(3.) THE application of the petitioners was rejected by all the three Authorities mainly on the ground that after their wrongful dispossession the petitioners ought to have made an application for restoration of possession under section 29 within the prescribed period of two years and since the petitioners have failed to apply within the said period their right as well as remedy is lost and therefore the petitioners are not entitled to purchase the lands.