VITHAL TOPANNA KAMBLE Vs. DATTU BHUJINGA MORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is aimed against an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in a proceeding under Section 32P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' or 'Tenancy Act'.

(2.) AGRICULTURAL land now bearing Block No. 35 at Village Jangamwadi, Taluka Hatkanangale, District Kolhapur previously belonged to landlord Ghorpade. Proceedings under Section 32G of the Act were begun in respect of that land. The purchase was held to be ineffective and the land vested in the State Government on January 29, 1977 to be utilised as part of the pool for distribution amongst various categories of people. Pending the distribution, the Government leased out the land to 22 persons who included the petitioners and 17 others, but not the respondents. The leases were to be for the duration of a year and the lessees passed kabulayats year after year, until the cultivating season 1981 -82. On May 13, 1982, a notice was drawn up inviting claims by people for allotment of portions from Block No. 35. The notice inviting such claims was affixed on the notice board of the village chavdi by the Talatt on May 14, 1982. On June 2, 1982, an officer of the Revenue Department accompanied by panchas went to Block No. 35 and drew up a panchanama giving the estimate of the price made by him in consultation with the panchas. On February 17, 1982, the price was fixed at Rs. 12,040/ -. Some 49 persons made a bid for being allotted the land, 22 persons were chosen and they were the 17 lessees and the 5 respondents. The petitioners did not figure in this lot of 22 persons. On June 30', 1982, the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. settled the priority list comprising the 17 from the original lessees and the respondents, as being entitled to get the land distributed amongst them in different proportions. The portions allotted to the allottees ranged from 5.25 gunthas to 2 acres. The allottees were to pay the price within two months, and failing that, to pay the same along with interest at a particular rate. On full payment of the price, the allottees were to get purchase certificate in accordance with Section 32M of the Act. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioners preferred an application to the Collector, Kolhapur. That officer held that the allotments made in favour of the respondents and others were not proper inasmuch as the proper procedure had not been followed. The notice issued by the A.L.T. was not in the prescribed form and it had not been published by the beat of drum as required under Rule 21 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956. The order of the A.L.T. was bad in law, and had therefore, to be set aside. The case was remanded to A.L.T. for a fresh distribution in accordance with the law. Dissatisfied, the respondents went in revision to the M.R.T. The learned Member of the Tribunal who heard the revision, felt that the Collector had taken an unduly technical view vis -a -vis the publication of the notice. In substance, the requirements of the rule had been complied with and the allotments made on June 30, 1982 had to be given effect to.

(3.) WHAT order? My findings, for reasons given below, are: - 1. No. 2. No. 3. No. It is not just and has to be set aside. 4. Petition allowed as per order. REASONS 4. Mr. Gole for the respondents raises a preliminary objection about the tenability of the petition having regard to the fact that the 17 persons allotted Block No. 35 along with the respondents have not been impleaded. The argument is that the order impugned is one which manures to the benefit of the 17 allottees as also the respondents. The non -joinder of the 17 allottees is fatal and it is not open to this Court to pass an order to their detriment without hearing them. Mr. Naik for the petitioners makes it clear that the petitioners have no objection to the allotment made in favour of the 17. Like the petitioners, those 17 persons were lessees under Ek -sali leases taken immediately after the land vested in the Government for distribution amongst different categories of people. What the petitioners object to is the intrusion of the respondents by supplanting them. There is substance in the contention advanced by Mr. Naik. Petitioners, if they have a grievance, it can be only against the respondents. This is because the respondents are the only allottees vide order dated June 30, 1982 who were not amongst the lessees in the Ek -sali leases. The parcels of the land now in possession of the petitioners have been ear -marked for the respondents and it is not as if the 22 allottees have been given a joint title vis -a -vis Block No. 35 as a whole. Significantly, the plea of non -joinder was not raised before the Collector nor was the Collector's order assailed on the ground that the 17 allottees were not parties to the proceeding before the Collector.