BANABAI ISHWARA NANGARE Vs. SUVARNAMAN VISHWASRAO INGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these petitions filed by the tenant and landlord respectively impugned the same order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 26/8/1985 in revision Application No. 139 of 1983, whereby the said revision was partly allowed.

(2.) Agricultural lands admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas in total from two different survey numbers, namely, Survey Nos. 264/2 and 265/2 of village Ghunaki in Taluka Hatkanangale of Kolhapur District were the patil Inam lands and granted to Shri Vishwasrao dattajirao Ingale of village Ghunaki. Shri Ishwara sheku Nangare was the tenant cultivating the said land as on 1/4/1957 and as at present the land is part of one single Block No. 1017-E. As the lands were Inam lands, the proceedings for statutory purchase of the land by the tenant could not be instituted and more particularly under Section 32g of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the tenancy Act). However, the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 was enacted and the patel Inam was abolished under Section 3 of the said act. They were resumed by the State Government on 1/1/1963 which was the appointed day under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of office) Act, 1962 (for short Inam Abolition Act). Sometimes in the year 1975 the tenant approached the additional Tahasildar and ALT, Hatkanangale with an application to initiate proceedings under Section 32g of the Tenancy Act and these proceedings were dropped by the said officer on the ground that the land was not re-granted and it continued to vest in the State government, though the tenant was cultivating the land. The tenant, therefore, went in appeal before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kolhapur, who was pleased to dismiss the appeal on 6/3/1978 and his revision Application was also dismissed by the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 22/3/1979. Thus, the alt, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the maharashtra Revenue Tribunal concurrently held that the land was not re-granted to the Inamdar or to anyone else after it was resumed on 1/1/1963 by the state Government.

(3.) The tenant claimed that in the year 1980 he got the knowledge regarding the re-grant of the suit land to the original Inamdar and, therefore, on or about 3/11/1980 he gave notice to the grantee in respect of the land in Survey No. 264/2. Prior to the said date Suo Motu proceedings were initiated by the alt under Section 32g of the Tenancy Act and a notice dated 27/3/1980 was issued for hearing on 11/4/1980. These proceedings were adjourned from time to time but on 16/8/1980 the tenants statement was recorded and 7 x 12 extracts issued to him were taken on record. The talathis report dated 4/10/1980 was also received by the ALT and from the said report, for the first time, it was noticed by the ALT that, (a) the land in Survey No. 265/2 was re-granted to the landlord in 1968 and mutation entry no. 7046 was effected on 26/6/1968, and (b) the entire land in Survey No. 264 admeasuring 9 acres and 11 gunthas was re-granted to the landlord Inamdar under the tahasildars order dated 7/10/1980. The Tahasildar, therefore, adjourned the proceedings from time to time and hearing had taken place on 20/5/1981 on which date the tenants statement was again recorded and he was also cross-examined on 6/6/1981. The landlords statement was recorded and he was cross-examined on 23/6/1981. In both these statements, the respective parties reiterated that the order of re-grant was not communicated to them at any point of time, but the landlord admitted in his statement that the tenant was cultivating the land all along. The landlord, however, denied the claim of the tenant that the purchase notice was given by him to the landlord within the year of re-grant. The authorities below, including Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, have rejected the claim under Section 32g of the Tenancy Act of the tenant on the following grounds:-