VIKRAM YESHWANTA Vs. EKNATH TRIMBAK GADEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the petitioners, namely, Yeshwanta, was the original tenant from the year 1951-52 of the field S. No. 19/1, area 19 acres 32 gunthas of village Murdapur, Tahsil Chikhali, District Buldana. One Gopal son of Laxman was the original landholder who had leased out this field. By virtue of the provisions of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951, Yeshwanta became the protected lessee of the said land. Thereafter Yeshwanta had surrendered the tenancy and had also parted with the possession of the land in favour of the tenure-holder Gopal in the year 1956. The field in question was purchased by Trimbak, father of the respondents, vide registered sale deed dated 16-8-1956, for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-. After this sale took place, Yeshwanta applied for restoration of tenancy and possession under Section 10 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). His application in that behalf was dismissed by the Tahsildar, vide order dated 10-10-1962. Being aggrieved by the said order, he filed an appeal which was allowed by the Appellate Court on 30-9-1963 and the revision application filed against the said order was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 30-6-1964. A special civil application was also filed before this Court challenging the said order but it was also dismissed and ultimately Yeshwanta was placed in possession of the field in question on 4-4-1965. The original tenant Yeshwanta died on 3-5-1965 and the present petitioners are his legal representatives.

(2.) Thereafter, the present respondents-landholders applied for possession of the said field, vide application dated 30-8-1968 purported to have been filed under Sections 21, 43 (14-A) and 36 (2) of the Tenancy Act on the ground that since the petitioners-tenants had not exercised their right within the period prescribed by Section 50 of that Act, the land was deemed to have been surrendered in favour of the respondents-landholders. Subsequently on 10-12-1968 an amendment application was filed before the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar by the respondents-tenure-holders contending that in the partition the said laid had fallen to the share of Eknath alone and, therefore, the other respondents were mere formal parties. The said amendment application was allowed. It appears that the vendee Trimbak also died and, therefore, his legal representatives, namely, the present respondents had instituted these proceedings. The tenancy Naib Tahsildar, Chikhali, vide order dated 6-1-1969, allowed the application of the respondents-landlords and directed that the petitioners should hand over possession of the said land to respondent Eknath. Being aggrieved by this order, the present petitioners filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Buldana. The Deputy Collector, vide his order dated 15-4-1969, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar. Being aggrieved by this order, the res-pondent-tenure-holders filed a revision petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, vide its order dated 15-10-1970, allowed the revision petition and restored the order passed by the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar directing the petitioners-tenants to put respondent Eknath in possession of the suit field. It is this order which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioners-tenants.

(3.) Initially when the matter came up for hearing before a single Judge of this Court, the learned Judge after hearing the matter directed that the petition should be placed before a Division Bench so that the questions raised and involved in this writ petition are authoritatively examined and settled. It appears from the referring order that the learned Judge came to the conclusion that an earlier decision of this Court in Govinda v. Udhao (1972) Mah LJ 588 : (AIR 1972 Bom 169) requires reconsideration in view of the weighty submissions made before him. In view of this referring order, this writ petition is placed before us (or hearing and disposal.