MOHAN GAJANAN DESHPANDE Vs. DHONDIRAM HARI CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a landlords petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 2nd August, 1979 passed in Revision by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur.

(2.) The material facts relied upon by both sides before me and which are not in dispute are these : The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (hereafter for short, the tenants) were holding Survey No. 74, 1 acre 2 gunthas, assessment Rs. 4/-, of village Kale in Kolhapur District as tenants of the petitioner. The petitioner was admittedly born on 2nd March, 1950 and became major on 2nd March, 1968. Hereafter the petitioner will be referred to as the landlord. In 1973, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal suo motu started 32-G proceedings. By its order dated 24th December, 1973, it dropped these proceedings for the reasons that the landlord was a minor on the tillers day (that is to say 1st April, 1957). In 1977 that Tribunal again initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereafter the Act). On 7th February, 1977 the Tribunal made an order to the effect that the purchase of the land in favour of the tenants had become ineffective, in as much as they had not exercised their right of purchase within the time permitted by section 32-F(1-A) of the Act. The tenants carried an appeal to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. By his order dated 31st July, 1978, the appellate authority set aside the order of the Lower Court and remanded the matter back for fresh disposal according to law. The appellate authority was of the view that in the 32-G proceedings of 1973, the tenants had expressed their desire to purchase the land and this should have been treated by the A.L.T. as sufficient compliance of the requirements of section 32-F(1-A). Although it has not cited rulings, the appellate authority purported to have relied upon A.I.R. 1974 Bom. 92 (Rama Joshilkar v. Kirtikumar Desai) The landlord challenged the decision in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It confirmed the order in appeal. Now the dispute is before me in these Article 227 proceedings.

(3.) The core of the reasoning of the M.R.T. is that it was incumbent on the landlord under the latter part of section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act to give an intimation to the tenants of his having attained majority, within one year of that event, so as to enable them to exercise their right of purchase. In its view this amendment was retrospective in operation. Such notice was admittedly not sent by the landlord to the tenants. Eventually there was no obligation on the tenants to give any intimation under section 32-F(1-A) to the landlord or the A.L.T. of their desires to purchase the land.