HARI BABU WAGHARE Vs. KRISHNA (KISAN) DAGADU KAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present writ petition instituted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Mumbai in Tenancy Revision No. 110/B/2002, whereby the Tribunal has recorded a finding declaring the respondents to be tenants in respect of the subject agricultural lands.

(2.) The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition, in brief, is thus. The lands bearing (i) Survey No. 84, Hissa No. 1 (old) corresponding to New Survey No. 31, Hissa No. 1, (ii) Survey No. 128, Hissa No. 10 (old) corresponding to New Survey No. 78, Hissa No. 10, and (iii) Survey No. 128, Hissa No. 4 (old) corresponding to New Survey No. 78, Hissa No. 4, were originally owned by one Vinayak Balkrishna Sathe. Upon his demise, the name of his heir and legal representative, Sakharam Vinayak Sathe, came to be entered in the record of rights as owner by virtue of Mutation Entry No. 92, which was duly certified. Thereafter, Sakharam Vinayak Sathe expired on 29/12/1951, leaving behind his widow, Sarla Sakharam Sathe, as his legal heir, whose name was accordingly recorded in the record of rights under Mutation Entry No. 458, which also came to be certified. It is further borne out from the record that one Pandu Damji Kaap was the original tenant in respect of the said lands prior to the year 1958, and his name was entered in the record of rights pursuant to Mutation Entry No. 310. Upon the death of the said Pandu, his wife, Laadibai Pandu Kaap, was shown as his legal representative. Subsequently, Laadibai expired on 25/9/1957, whereupon her daughter-in-law, namely Anandibai Dagadu Kaap, came to be recorded in the revenue records, and Mutation Entry No. 544 was accordingly effected.

(3.) It further appears that during the period 195657, Anandibai Dagadu Kaap was not personally cultivating the subject lands for a continuous period of two years, which fact was noticed by the competent authority. Consequently, her name came to be deleted from the record of rights by recording Mutation Entry No. 558, which was certified on 16/10/1959 and has remained unchallenged till date. The petitioners contend that they purchased the said lands from the original owner pursuant to an agreement dtd. 15/12/1961 executed with Respondent No. 4, and their names, or those of their predecessors, were entered in the record of rights under Mutation Entry No. 661, certified on 1/7/1962. It is also brought on record that one Sripati Waghare, a person of standing in the village, was shown as a tenant in respect of the said lands under Mutation Entry No. 472. However, the said Sripati Waghare made a statement before the competent authority declaring that he was not cultivating the lands, and accordingly, by an order dtd. 15/6/1974, his name was deleted from the record of rights. Consequential mutation being Entry No. 851 was recorded and certified on 10/11/1974. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1, claiming to be the legal heir and representative of the original tenant Dagadu Kaap, instituted proceedings on 29/6/2000 before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Mangaon, being Tenancy Case No. 53A of 1999, which came to be contested by the petitioners and their predecessors by filing a detailed reply.