NAMDEO KRISHNA CHOUGULE Vs. SADU NANA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner filed an application under Section 846 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as Bombay Tenancy Act) on 16-4-1984. THE said application came to be rejected by Tenancy Awal Karkun, Panhala. THE said rejection came be confirmed in Tenancy Appeal by Collector, Kolhapur and further in Revision by M.R.T. Bombay on 10-9-1987. THE same is under challenge in this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

(2.) FEW facts are as under :- The Respondent no.1's father was the tenant of 3 lands i.e. Gat No.1514, 1517 and 1519 situated at village Yavluj, Taluka Panhala, District Kolhapur on the tillers' day. The proceedings under Section 32-G were initiated and he was declared as deemed purchaser. The purchase price was fixed and it was duly paid. After his death, the Respondent no.1 on certain terms and conditions.

(3.) IN my opinion, the Courts below are right in holding that retrospective effect is given to the deletion of word 'partition' from Section 43 of Maharashtra Act No.V of 1982 and all those tenants who were in possession on the date of commencement of the said Act i.e. on 5-2-1982 are protected. Section 3 of Maharashtra Act No.V of 1982 reads as follows :- S.3(1) IN section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act - (a) in sub-section (1), the words "or partitioned' shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, deleted; (b) in sub-section (2), the words "or partition" shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, deleted. (2) Notwithstanding the amendment of section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy Act made by sub-section (1) of this section, where any orders have been made, by the Collector or any officer exercising the powers of the Collector under the said Section 43, declaring partition of any land as invalid and the person concerned has been evicted by the Collector or such officer from such land, before the commencement of this Act, then such order shall not be affected by the amendment aforesaid, but shall continue to be in operation as before. Section 3(1)(a) and (b) make amply clear by using the phraseology 'shall be deemed always to have been deleted; that retrospective effect is given to that provision. Partition of the property will not be considered as violation or contravention of the provision of Section 43 of Bombay Tenancy Act. Further sub-section (2) of Section 3 curtails this effect to some extent by saying that a tenant who is in possession of tenanted land on the date of commencement of this act shall not be evicted by the Collector on the ground that partition was effected. The possession of such tenant is protected. Only tenant who is already evicted from the land pursuant to the order passed by the Collector under Section 43 before the commencement of the Maharashtra Act V of 1982 shall not be able to get the benefit of this amendment. IN this case there is no dispute that the Respondent was in possession on 5-2-1982 and is in possession of the suit lands. IN view of this I pass the following order :- Rule is discharged. IN the facts and circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.