GANPAT TATYABA KHADTALE Vs. USHABAI BHIMRAO CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Appeals and Revision) dated 17th February 1988 in Revision No. BIW-3087/1031/l. 5/cr/503 of 1987 (A and R ). The disputed land is bearing Survey No. 266/4-C (now gat No. 268) situated at Niphad Dist. Nasik. The said land gat No. 268 is originally class XVI B of Indian land granted to original Watandar under section 23 of the Hereditary Offices Act, 1827 as a remuneration of official or for his services. The said land was granted in favour of late Tatyaba Khandu Khadtale under the said provisions of the Act. The petitioner is the son of the late Tatyaba Khandu challenging the proceedings initiated and the order passed by the Officer on Special Duty in revision filed by the respondent No. 1 herein. The late Tatyaba Khandu on 5th June 1958 under the registered sale deed had sold the suit land to the respondent No. 2 Smt. Shantabai Gangadhar Khadtale for Rs. 300/- on the condition that if the owner Watandar late Tatyaba Khadtale pays back the purchase price of Rs. 300/- to the purchaser Smt. Shantabai within five years, the suit land will revert back to the owner/watandar and the purchaser will execute the sale deed to that effect. The said land gat No. 268 was granted in favour of said late Tatyaba under the provisions of Hereditary Offices Act, 1827. Watandar Tatyaba the father of the petitioner died on or about in the year 1959. It is the case of the petitioner that when his father had executed a registered deed on 5th June, 1958 in favour of the respondent No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 300/- the petitioner was minor about 12 years old. The Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act, 1958 came into force and made applicable to the Nasik District with effect from February 1959. In 1958, the Bombay Inferior Village Watan Abolition Act came into force and the said Act was applied to the Nasik District. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the provisions of section 4 of the Watan Abolition Act, the land resumed by the Government and the suit land then came to be granted to the respondent No. 2 on 17th December 1963. The respondent No. 2 had made an application on 12th February 1965 to the Collector, Nasik for converting the said land into the old tenure. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 Shantabai sold the said land in favour of the respondent No. 3 on 23rd February, 1967 and even the respondent No. 3 had also sold the said land in favour of the respondent No. 4 in or about April, 1976.

(2.) THE petitioner had made an application before the Tahsildar, Niphad, District Nasik under section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code for evicting the respondent No. 4 from the land as at the relevant time he was occupying the suit land. The application was numbered and registered as IVS. Case No. 145 of 1976. Considering the application, Tahsildar Niphad as per order dated 23rd August, 1978 passed an order directing the transferee to be evicted summarily under section 59 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and ordered that the land in question should be forfeited to Government. He further ordered that the transferer comes from the backward class and since it is his first breach the land is regranted to the transferor on payment of Re. 1/ -.

(3.) THE said order of the Tahsildar Niphad dated 23rd August, 1978 was challenged by the respondent No. 4 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Niphad at Nasik by way of preferring appeal under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the said appeal was registered being No. IVS 67 of 1978 and dealing with the said appeal, the Sub Divisional Officer as per order dated 1st August, 1980 has allowed the appeal and he set aside the order of the Tahsildar and ordered that the possession of the land should be restored to the appellant. While dealing with the appeal, Sub Divisional Officer has observed that the appellant/respondent No. 4 herein has purchased the land in the year 1976 from the respondent No. 3 who has purchased the said land in the year 1967 from the respondent No. 2 as it was in her name. The respondent No. 2 has credited the necessary Nazrana amount at the time of transaction and it was old tenure at the time of purchase of the land. The said land is converted into old tenure in the year 1967 and he has observed that while treating old tenure land, the petitioner has not raised any objection. The decision taken by the Sub-Divisional Officer was based as per the decision of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application Nos. 2177 of 1978, 2319 of 1978, 3222 of 1978, 3323 of 1978 and 2413 of 1978. The said decision is reported in Indian Law Reports, 1982 in the case of (Trimbak Anna Ambade and another v. The Tahsildar Newasa, District Ahmednagar and others)