VIJAY KHANDOPANT DIWAN Vs. SHIVA TUKARAM CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated 29th November 1982 in 2 Revision Applications viz. MRT.KP-232 & 233 of 1981, filed by the landlord-Vijay Khandopant Diwan.

(2.) PROCEEDINGS under section 32-0 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, were initiated in Case No.Hamidwada 32-G/33/70, by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kagal, District-Kolhapur, in respect of land survey No.319, admeasuring 5 Acres and 6 gunthas assessed at Rs.16/- of village Hamidwada. It has been stated that previously, proceedings under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act, were started and were finalised on 2nd January 1971 by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the proceedings were dropped, on the ground that provisions section 32-0 of the Tenancy Act were attracted. Against that decision, the tenant filed Appeal No.400/71 before the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Kolhapur and the same was allowed and the case was remanded for fresh enquiry. That is how, fresh enquiry started in that case. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, after making fresh enquiry by his order dated 1st December 1977 came to the conclusion that since the suit land was Sanadi Inam land assigned for the services received to the Government the said inam was abolished on 1-2-1959 and then land was re-granted to the landlord on 16-11-1962. It was inter alia held that from the date of regrant, tenancy in favour of the respondent came to be created and, therefore, tenant became entitled to purchase the land from 1st April 1957. For such tenancy, which is created on 1st February 1959, provisions of section 32-0 of the Tenancy Act would apply. It was also found that the landlord-petitioner herein, was minor on 1-4-1957 and on that ground also, purchase by tenant was postponed and having regard to the provisions of section 32-F of the Tenancy Act, tenant not having given intimation of his desire to purchase the land, the purchase was rendered ineffective and the tenant was not entitled to purchase. As such, the land was directed to be disposed of under section 32-P of the Tenancy Act. Against that order, tenant preferred 2 separate appeals, one against purchase being held ineffective and other against the direction to dispose of the land under section 32-P of the Tenancy Act, viz. Appeals Nos. 5/78 and 79/78 came to the filed before the Land Acquisition Officer, Tulshi Project (1), Kolhapur. Both the said appeals came to be dismissed on 11th August 1981, by confirming the findings of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. Accordingly, the tenant filed two revision Applications viz.MRT-KP 232 & 233 of 1981 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur. The learned Member of the said Tribunal, on consideration of the matter found that findings of the lower authorities that fresh tenancy was created from 1st February 1959 when service inam came to be abolished, and that provisions of section 32-0 of the Tenancy Act would apply, clearly erroneous. It was then found that the authorities below failed to determine the question as to whether Vijay was real landlord on 1-4-1957, when tenant is deemed to have purchased, relying on decision of the Supreme Court in 1979 Tenancy L.R. 98 (Vithal Kulkarni vs. S.T.Pawar) and decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.2177/78 as also decision of the Supreme Court in 1977 Te.L.R. 2 (Pandurang Dnyandoba Lad Vs. Dada Rama Methe). The tenant in this case was already in possession of the land on 1-4-1957. As such, tenancy was lawful and subsisting on that date and, therefore, it cannot be said that fresh tenancy was created from the date of re-grant of the land in favour of the landlord. Further, on consideration of the evidence on record, the Tribunal also found that one Yeshwant, maternal uncle of the present petitioner was shown as landlord and there is no material to indicate that the land was allotted to the present petitioner-Vijay before 1-4-1957 by equitable partition, having regard to area, classification etc. share of the minor - Vijay in the entire joint family property. Thus the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal found that by virtue of section 8 of the Bombay Inferior Watan Abolition Act, 1958, the rights and liabilities of the landlord as well as tenant would be the same, provided Vatan land was lawfully leased and such lease was subsisting on the appointed date. As such, the provisions of the Tenancy Act would apply and, accordingly, the respondent-tenant in this case had become deemed purchaser of the land. That is how, the Tribunal set aside the order of the authorities below and remanded the matter to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fixation of the purchase price.

(3.) NONE appears for the respondent.