LAXMAN BABAN GUND Vs. DATTATRAYA RAMBHAU WAGHCHAURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of by a brief order, regard being had to the facts of the case, the petitioner asserts that his father is the owner and possessed agricultural land bearing Gat No.205 admeasuring 3 Hectors and 56 Ares at Village Nangaon in Daund Taluka of Pune District. According to him, his father obtained a loan from respondent under a deed agreeing to sell a part of the aforementioned land while further asserting that no possession of the land was ever given to the respondent. According to the petitioner, this document was executed on 16th September 1976.

(2.) THE petitioner claims that by playing a fraud and enticing the Talathi of the village, pencil entries were made in record of rights as if the respondent was cultivating the land and on the basis of which the respondent moved an application to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, namely Tahsildar at Daund. This application was purported to be under Section 32-0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'B.T.A.L. Act'). THE Tribunal, after hearing the parties, by an order dated 24th June 1977 allowed the application of the respondent. On confirming that the respondent is tenant, it was held that the respondent was entitled to purchase the land under Section 32-0 of the B.T.A.L. Act. THE Tahsildar found that Rs.830/- is the reasonable price of the land and, accordingly, directed the respondent to pay the same to the petitiner's father.

(3.) I have gone through the order of the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 28th November 1983. On perusal of this order, it is clear that the petitioner had instituted Revision Application on 27th November 1981. The petitioner had made a statement that the order of the Assistant Collector dated 12th September 1981 was communicated to him on 1st October 1981. It was, therefore, pointed out by Shri Chopda that considering the date of communication, the Revision Application was well within time. It appears that the envelope communicating the order by the Assistant Collector was sought to be produced in support of the case of the petitioner that the communication was made to him on 1st October 1981, but, however the Tribunal held that the envelope does not bear any stamp. It is difficult to appreciate that even when the Tribunal did not find the stamp, the tribunal which had ample powers to condone the delay did not do so. Going on the assumption that the Assistant Collector made the impugned order on 12th September 1981 and even if it is held that it was communicated to the petitioner a little later, the fact, however, remains that the Revision Application was instituted on 27th November 1981. Therefore, even if the Revision Application was held to be beyond the period of limitation,, such a period was within a small range. It is not understood why the Tribunal took a very strict and hyper-technical view to dismiss the Revision Application. In my view, the order of the Tribunal dated 28th November 1983 cannot be allowed to be sustained as in any case the petitioner cannot be held to be negligent in preferring the Revision Application or the Revision Application was barred by gross laches and delay. I must, however, record that Shri Chopda indeed attempted to make this Court decide the matter on the merits of the matter. I advisedly resist from doing so. In my view, the B.T.A.L. Act has provided a remedy before the Tribunal and the petitioner even preferred Revision Application and which as mentioned earlier was dismissed for technical reasons that the same was filed beyond the period of limitation by few days or barred by law of limitation by a few days. In my view, inasmuch as the petitioner has a chance of getting the Revision Application heard by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on its merits, there is no question of this Court in its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to go into the merits of the matter at this stage. It is open to the petitioner to urge all points before the Tribunal and invite its final order on merits.