KRISHNA SANTU WAKAREKAR Vs. SADASHIV GANESH HAROLIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed by the tenant the orders passed by the revenue authorities in favour of the landlord in the proceedings under Section 33B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Tenancy Act') are challenged on the ground that the certificate issued under Section 88C in favour of the landlord was revoked during the pendency of the proceedings and since the correctness of the order of the Commissioner revoking the certificate had not been challenged by the landlord that order had become final and consequently a right had vested in favour of the tenant under Section 88D of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) CERTAIN dates and the nature of the orders which were passed on the relevant dates are required to be stated in order to appreciate the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) IT appears that while the appeals were pending before the appellate authority, the landlord had produced before it relevant revenue records to show the extent of the lands possessed by the tenant. The Revenue Tribunal while deciding both the revision applications by a common order took the view that though the Khata extracts with regard to the tenant's land were not produced in the trial Court, the Assistant Collector should have considered 'whether this particular evidence is admissible and could be used against the tenant?' The Tribunal observed that an opportunity should be given to the tenant to rebut the inference which may be deduced from the additional evidence. Since what exactly is the effect of the operative order of the Revenue Tribunal is of some consequence so far as this petition by the tenant is concerned, I quote the operative part of the Tribunal's order, which is as follows: .In the interest of justice, therefore, we feel that both these cases should be remanded back to the appellate authority and the appellate authority should be directed to consider the Khata which has been produced before it and to give both the sides an opportunity to lead evidence to show whether the tenant possesses other land as shown in the Khata and whether that could be taken into consideration in making allotment under Section 33B(5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. We, therefore, allow both the revision applications, set aside the orders passed by both the authorities and remand the case back to the appellate court for considering whether the tenant holds other land as shown in the Khata which has been produced and which can be taken into consideration in considering the distribution of the land under Section 33B (5)(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. It is proper to notice the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner at this stage because unless that contention is accepted admittedly the tenant will not be entitled to any relief. The contention of Mr. Pendse, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant -petitioner, is that the effect of this order was that even the order of the Aval Karkun dated January 25, 1963 granting resumption of 1 acre 8 gunthas of land in favour of the landlord also was set aside because when the Tribunal refers to setting aside the 'orders passed by both the authorities', the authorities referred to could only be the appellate authority and the authority in the first instance, viz. the Aval Karkun.