RAJARAM SHIVA TAPKIRE Vs. GORAKH EKNATH TAPKIRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of the original tenant, call in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal has confirmed the concurrent findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer and the Tahsildar. By the said orders, the authorities allowed the application preferred by the landlord, declared the statutory purchase of the tenant as ineffective, and directed restoration of possession under Sec. 32P of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to the present proceedings are as follows. The petitioners represent the estate of late Shri Shiva Martand Tapkire, who was the tenant. The respondents represent the estate of the original landlady, Smt. Geetabai Atmaram Tapkire, in respect of agricultural land bearing Consolidation Block No. 310, admeasuring 3 Hectares and 18 R, situated at village Guanawadi. According to the petitioners, the land was originally owned by Shri Atmaram Tapkire, father of the respondents. By a lease deed dtd. 5/7/1943, he inducted the father of the petitioners as a tenant in respect of the suit land. Upon the demise of Shri Atmaram Tapkire, the ownership of the land devolved upon his widow, Smt. Geetabai Atmaram Tapkire, in accordance with law.

(3.) It is the case on record that on 23/8/1955, Smt. Geetabai Tapkire executed a registered lease deed in favour of Shri Shiva Tapkire, and pursuant thereto, his name came to be entered in the revenue record as tenant by Mutation Entry No. 6722. Smt. Geetabai Tapkire expired on 10/7/1973. It is not in dispute that neither the tenant nor the legal heirs of the landlady initiated proceedings within the statutory framework at that stage. Subsequently, in the year 2007, the respondents instituted Tenancy Case No. 1 of 2007 under Sec. 32P of the Act, contending that the legal representatives of the tenant had failed to exercise the right of purchase within the period prescribed under Sec. 32F and that such right stood extinguished. They sought a declaration to that effect and prayed for restoration of possession. By order dtd. 14/2/2008, the Tahsildar, Baramati, allowed the said application, declared the right of purchase as ineffective, and directed the respondents to approach the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for obtaining possession by filing a separate application under Sec. 32P. The petitioners preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 2008 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati. By order dtd. 2/2/2010, the appeal was dismissed. The petitioners then carried the matter in Revision Application No. 62 of 2010 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By judgment and order dtd. 9/12/2013, the learned Member dismissed the revision. It is against these concurrent orders that the present writ petition has been instituted.