LAXMAN HARI TAMBE Vs. DATTU SONU PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution impugns the Judgment and Order dated 6th November, 1987 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune thereby allowing the Revision Application No.279 of 1986. By the said order the application filed under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the Tenancy Act) came to be allowed. The factual matrix relevant to the present proceedings could be shortly stated as under.

(2.) The public notice dated 22/8/1981 published in a local newspaper called "Jiwhala" on 23/8/1981 through Mr. G.U. Dongre, Advocate had clearly stated that the suit land belonged to Shri Laxman Hari Tambe, resident of Satara City and it was under the cultivation of Shri Dattu Sonu Pawar for the last more than 60 years, the landlord was never in possession and cultivation of the said land and he was intending to sell the said land while he had no such right in law, the public notice was, therefore, informed not to enter in any sale transaction of the suit land with Shri Laxman Hari Tambe and the tenant was in continuous possession and cultivation of the suit land. In Tenancy Case No.141 of 1981 the landlord appeared and contested the claim of the tenant but did not disclose that the suit land was already sold to third parties. Whereas in the instant petition it has been stated by the petitioner landlord that the land in Survey No.41/3+4 was sold to Dyanu Bali Pawar for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- by registered sale deed dated 21/9/1981 and the land in Survey No.41/1 was sold to Saibu Bali Pawar for a consideration of Rs.15,000/- by registered sale deed dated 14/12/1981. It has been further contended that both these brothers Dyanu and Saibu were put in possession of the land and they remained in possession. This statement does not appear in any of the orders passed by the revenue authorities i.e. Tenancy Awal Karkun, SDO as well as the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and as a result thereof the alleged purchasers could not be impleaded as necessary parties in the proceedings decided under the Tenancy Act. Even in this petition, the petitioner himself never took out any application to implead the alleged purchasers of the suit land, whereas the respondents-tenants insist that they are in possession and cultivation of the suit land as at present.

(3.) The parties had placed on record certain documents in support of their respective claims. The landlord had mainly relied upon the Mutation Entry No.1609 effected on 31/1/1956 thereby deleting the name of Dattu Sonu Pawar as the tenant and the tenant had relied upon the Mutation Entry No.1326 which was effected on 17/5/1949. In addition, both the parties have placed on record some receipts of land revenue paid in respect of the suit land. The tenant relied upon 7/12 extracts as well. The Tahsildar considered two issues, namely,