MARUTI BALU PATIL Vs. SULBHA PRABHAKAR PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed as against judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the MRT")on 30th September, 1991 in a proceeding no. TNA-46/1991 whereby the said revision application was allowed and both the orders, i. e. , Order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Hereinafter referred to as "the SDO") and order passed by the Tahsildar, Chiplun were set aside, and the respondent who was revision petitioner before the MRT was declared to be the tenant of the suit land under section 70 (b) of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (Hereinafter, in short referred to as "the Tenancy Act. " ).

(2.) THE proceeding arises From Tenancy Case 19 of 1986 (Number was wrongly quoted as 19 of 1987 by the Tahsildar ). Respondent - Sulbha filed a tenancy case bearing No. 19 of 1986 under section 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act seeking a declaration that the respondent is tenant of land - Survey No. 108/37 admeasuring 0-H, 3. 3-R assessed at 48 paise, situated at Guhagar, Taluka-Guhagar, district- Ratnagiri. The said application was filed on 29th September,1986. By order dated 20-7-1987, Tahsildar, Guhagar allowed the said application and declared that the respondent is tenant of the said land. The said order of the tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner - alleged landlord by filing Tenancy appeal No. 13 of 1987 before the SDO, Chiplun. The tenancy appeal No. 14 of 1987 was decided on 20-12-1989 by the SDO, chiplun. The said appeal was allowed and the order passed by Tahsildar in tenancy Case No. 19 of 1986, referred to above, was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh inquiry in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. After remand of case to Tahsildar, instead of continuing the case on previous number, it was re-numbered as Tenancy case No. 9 of 1990. After fresh inquiry, Tahsildar Guhagar by judgment dated 26-4-1990 decided Tenancy Case no. 9 of 1990 (Original Tenancy Case No. 19 of 1986 ). By the said judgment, tahsildar dismissed claim of the respondent that respondent is tenant of the suit land. The respondent, therefore, filed an appeal under section 74 of the Tenancy act before the SDO, Chiplun being Tenancy appeal No. 8 of 1990. The SDO, chiplun by order dated 31-12-1990 dismissed the said appeal confirming the order of Tahsildar. The respondent, therefore, being aggrieved by both the judgments preferred Revision Application under section 76 of the Tenancy Act before the MRT which was numbered as tna -46/1991. It was decided on 30th September, 1991, as stated above. The revision application filed by the respondent before the MRT was allowed by the mrt by setting aside the judgment of Tahsildar, Guhagar and judgment of SDO, Chiplun, referred to above, and further declared that the respondent is tenant of the suit land. Therefore, the writ petitioner-owner of the said land has approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under article 227, Constitution of India.

(3.) THE respondent who initiated the proceeding under section 70 (b), as stated above, has contended in Application that, since 55 years the suit land was/is openly and continuously in possession of her father-in-law as tenant, and that there are old coconut trees, newly planted two alphanso Mango trees, 10 trees of Bittle nuts in the said land. The respondent further contended that, in the said land there was/is a hut which bears grampanchayat No. 1276 and said hut stands in the name of Prabhakar Keshav Patil, who is husband of the respondent. The respondent has also claimed that the father-in-law of respondent had excavated a well in the said land. Respondent has further contended that on 24-9-1986 respondent's possession was obstructed, and therefore respondent made an inquiry as to whether the name of respondent was/is recorded in the record of rights, and it was found by the respondent that name of respondent was/is not in 7/12 extract. Therefore, respondent has filed application for declaration that the respondent is the tenant of the said land.