BABUTAI Vs. GOPAL JOTI MANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, dated 5th February 1987, in MRT.KP.59/1981, under section 76 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, is impugned. By this order, the M.R.T-Kolhapur, remanded the case for fresh enquiry, having regard to the observations made in the body of the judgment, there by allowing Revision Application and setting aside the orders of two Courts below.

(2.) It appears that the respondent-Gopal Joti Mane claimed to be tenant of the land survey No.,200/1, 200/2 and 200/3 of village Shendur, Taluka Kagal, District - Kolhapur. These were Jagir Inam lands and this jagir came to be abolished by the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagir Abolition) Act, 1953 and proceeding under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act came to be initiated in respect of these lands by the A.L.T. Kagal and numbered as 32-G/201/79. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal came to the conclusion that the said Gopal Mane was not a tenant and there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the present petitioner and the respondent and that is how the said proceedings came to be dropped. The respondent herein preferred appeal being Tenancy Appeal No.98-A/1979, which was heard by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (General), Kolhapur and on 10-12-1980, the learned Appellate Court confirmed the finding recorded by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and dismissed the appeal. The matter was then taken up to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur and the learned Member of the Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record and factual aspects, came to the conclusion that the respondent herein appears to be tenant of these lands ever since before abolition of Jagiri and, therefore tenancy rights are not affected. Even after regrant of the land, occupancy price was paid by the tenant and tenancy is continued and not at all affected. In these circumstances, the tenant was in possession of the land on 1-4-1957 and, therefore, he is entitled to purchase the same despite abolition of watan and regrant in favour of the occupant or other persons. In view of this position, the M.R.T. set aside the orders of A.L.T. and the Sub-Divisional Officer and remanded the case for fresh inquiry as stated above.

(3.) I have heard Shri Kumbhakoni for the petitioner and none appears for the respondent. Shri Kumbhakoni submitted that he has no objection to the order of remand passed by the M.R.T. but the tribunal has assumed that the respondent herein was tenant of the suit land and was in possession of land on 1-4-1957. He pointed out from the judgment of the Agri. Lands Tribunal 4 and the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal, that the respondent was found to be no more tenant and there existed no relationship of landlord and tenant. Shri Kumbhakoni also pointed from the judgment of the Civil Court, Kagal, in Reg Civil Suit No.97/92, wherein the present respondent had claimed possession of these lands not as tenant, but on the basis of Eksali holder from the Government. Hence, the Civil Court came to the conclusion that respondent being Eksali holder from Government, had no right as tenant and, therefore, could not claim for possession. The learned Member of the Tribunal appears to have not gone through the judgment of the Civil Court. As such, by maintaining the order of remand, a clarification is necessary that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal hearing the matter after remand for fresh enquiry, shall consider the question whether respondent was the tenant and in possession on 1-4-1957 and was, therefore, entitled to purchase the same, having regard to all the circumstances and facts of the case. It is clarified that the A.L.T. will not be influenced by the observations made by this Court or by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Except this clarification, I find no merit in this writ petition.