S A RAHIM Vs. SHIDU LAXMAN RAMOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE interesting point of law raised in this petition is as to whether an order dropping the proceeding under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), on the statement of the so called tenant to the effect that he is not a tenant on the suit land, can be equated to a declaration to the effect that the purchase has been declared to be ineffective.

(2.) IT appears from the facts as narrated by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the M. R. T. ") in Revision Application No. M. R. T. N. S. XII. 1/78 (T. N. C. B. 359/78) dated 8th February, 1980 that the respondent was wrongly recorded as a tenant in the Record of Rights with regard to the suit lands. When proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were initiated, the respondents made a statement to the effect that he is wrongly shown as a tenant in the Record of Rights. It was, therefore, prayed by him that his name be removed from the other rights column in the Record of Rights with regard to the suit lands. On the basis of this statement, the Additional Mamlatdar and A. L. T. No. 1 directed that the name of the respondent and the tenant shall be deleted from the other rights column in the Record of Rights and orders to that effect will be issued to the village officer concerned to effect the necessary change in the Record of Rights. The respondents accepted that order. However, after 13 years filed Tenancy Appeal No. 103 of 1977 in the Court of Assistant Collector, Paltan Division, Paltan. The appeal was also dismissed by the Assistant Collector on 29th April, 1978. It was held that the statement recorded is voluntary and correct and therefore, rightly the proceedings under section 32-G had been dropped. Against the aforesaid decision, the revision application was filed, which came to be decided on 8th February, 1980. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that there has been a delay of 13 years in filing the appeal. The explanation for delay was also rejected. It was held that no sufficient explanation has been given for condonation of delay. In view of the above, the revision application was dismissed. The petitioner filed an application for summary eviction under section 84 of the Act. This application came to be numbered as Tenancy Case 36 of 1977. The Assistant Collector allowed the application by his order dated 29th April, 1978, but in the opening line of the order it is mentioned that the application is for summary eviction under section 32-P and section 84 of the Act.

(3.) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment, the respondents filed Revision Application No. M. R. T. N. S. XII. 1/78 (T. N. C. B. 359/78) which came to be decided on 8th February, 1980. In this revision, it was argued by the respondents that 32-P proceedings could not have been started as there is no declaration to the effect that the purchase is ineffective. The Counsel for the petitioners, however, had argued that the findings regarding non-tenancy were binding on the respondents by virtue of section 70 (b) of the Act. On the other hand, respondents had argued that the proceedings under section 32-G had been held illegally. Thus, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was stated to be without jurisdiction. The petitioner, however, reiterated the submission that the Sub-Divisional Officer was perfectly within his jurisdiction to order eviction under section 84. Merely because while giving the brief history of the case, the Sub-Divisional Officer made mention of section 32-P of the Act, it cannot be said that the order was passed under the said section. The M. R. T. came to the conclusion that section 32-P requires elaborate enquiry as detailed in the said section. This enquiry is to be made by the Tahasildar immediately after holding an enquiry under section 32-G in respect of the land where the enquiry has been dropped because of ineffective purchase. Since no enquiry had been made by the Tahasildar, it is held that the petitioner cannot claim right of restoration of the suit land unless and until an enquiry is held under section 32-P and an order is passed by the Tahasildar as required by section 32-P of the Act. Thus, the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer has been set aside and the revision application was partly allowed and the case is remanded to the Tahasildar for holding an enquiry under section 32-P and passing an order according to law. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioners preferred Review Application No. MRT-NS-IX-5/80 (Review) TEN-5/80) which has been decided on 21st April, 1981. This review application was, however, dismissed by the order dated 21st April, 1981.