BHIVA MARUTI KOPNAR Vs. SONBA BABAJI KOPNAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition arising out of the judgment and order, dated 30-11-1984, passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No. MRT. AH. I. /2/83 (TEN. B. 11/83), wherein the revision of the petitioners is dismissed by the Revenue Tribunal upholding the findings given by the courts below that the present respondent - Sonba Babaji Kopnar has become the owner of the suit land bearing Survey No. 134 of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) on 1-4-1957 in accordance with the provisions of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). This ownership was subject to the conditions that the purchase of the suit land was under section 43 of the Act and further that the fresh purchase certificate should be issued in the name of tenant purchaser after deposit of the full purchase price and the previous purchase certificate would stand cancelled.

(2.) TO understand the rival contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant facts of the case. The petitioners, who happened to be the legal representatives of the original landlord, are the owners of Field Survey No. 134 admeasuring 13 acres 23 gunthas, situated at village Rakshaswadi (BK.), Karjat Tahsil, District Ahmednagar. Respondent No. 1 - Sonba is a tenant of the suit land. In fact, even prior to Sonba, the father of Sonba was in possession of the land in question as a tenant thereon since the year 1932-33.

(3.) PROCEEDINGS under section 32-G of the Act were initiated in respect of the above land by the Additional Tahsildar, Karjat, who by his order, dated 24-2-1982 declared respondent Sonba as a owner of the said land and accordingly fixed the purchase price. The present petitioners challenged the said order of the Additional Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Parner, by way of an appeal bearing No. 18/82 and the learned Sub-Divisional Officer, by his judgment and order, dated 26-7-1982, dismissed the appeal filed by the present petitioners and confirmed the order, passed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. It is this order, which was challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on the ground that the Revenue Authorities below did not appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. It was also the contention before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the respondent Sonba was in possession of the land in excess of the ceiling limit as on 1-4-1957 besides the land in dispute and, therefore, according to the petitioners, the respondent tenant could not have purchased or could not have purchased or could not have exercised the right to purchase the land in question. Before the Revenue Tribunal, it was also contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent tenant was in possession of Survey Nos. 127, 129 and 130 as on 1-4-1957 and, therefore, the total acreage of these lands was 56. 61 acres and even after deducting certain uncultivable or Potkharab land, the cultivable land which remained with the tenant on 1-4-1957 since was more than the ceiling limit under section 5 of the Act would not have permitted the respondent Sonba to purchase the land in question. It was also the contention before the Revenue Tribunal, of the petitioners that the respondent Sonba on 1-4-1957 was in possession of Field Survey No. 125/2, that too of village Rakshaswadi (Bk.) with an area of 12. 16 acres. As regards this Field Survey No. 125/2, it was the contention of the petitioners before the Revenue Tribunal that this Survey Number originally belonged to one Smt. Yashodabai, which was held as a tenant by Sonba, and which was surrendered by him in the year 1962, in favour of Yashodabai. The very same land was again purchased on 16-4-1963 by the present respondent Sonba. Since the area of Field Survey No. 134, which is a land in dispute, as pointed out above, admeasures 13. 23 acres and, therefore, as per the calculations of the petitioners on the relevant date i. e. on 1-4-1957 Sonba had about 80. 16 acres of land which was much more than the limits prescribed and, therefore, it was the case of petitioners that he could not have been held to be entitled to purchase Survey No. 134. According to the petitioners, no declaration could be granted under section 32-G of the Act in favour of respondent Sonba.