FAKKAD HAIBATRAO DESHMUKH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein challenges the order Exh. B passed by Shri T. K. Kambale, Additional Commissioner, Konkan division on 17th November 1983 in this petition. By the impugned order the land comprising S. No. 2 measuring 28. 3/4 ares in village Shiroshi taluka Murbad Dist. Thane and ordered to be restored to the respondents. According to the case of the petitioner the respondent No. 3 was the wife of the original tenant who was cultivating the land. The original tenant died the respondent No. 3 surrendered the land to petitioners. Through an application alleged to have been made on 12-1-1957 to Tahsildar, Murbad for surrendering an order came to be passed on 17-8-1957 and the possession of the said land was given to the petitioner. As far back as 1979, a suo mottu proceedings have been initiated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribes Act, 1974, by the Additional Tahsildar, Ulhasnagar. After issuance of the notice to the parties and recording the statements thereof by proceedings dated 30-1-1979 evidenced at Exhibit A, the proceedings initiated under section 4 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Land to Schedule Tribe Act, 1974 were dropped. By impugned order the said proceedings have been revised. According to the petitioner the impugned order was illegal on the ground that the land was already surrendered to the landlord before 1-4-1957 and therefore no right is conferred on the respondents by the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. In order to substantiate this argument the learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Shastri contended that there is sufficient evidence to the effect that the respondent has surrendered the land under section 50 of the Bombay Rent Act which was certified by the Tahsildar as per the proceedings dated 17-8-57. According to the Counsel, the impugned order has been passed discarding this valid piece of evidence. The Counsel further submits that in order to adduce further evidence for establishing the fact of surrendering of the land before 1-4-57 by the respondent, the matter may be remanded back to the original authority by setting aside the impugned order.

(2.) I am not very much impressed with the arguments of the Counsel for the petitioner to remand this matter, particularly, at this distance of time. The petitioner was given an opportunity by the Additional Commissioner before passing the impugned order. He could have very well adduced necessary evidence before the Additional Commissioner to establish that the respondent had actually surrendered her tenancy right before 1-4-57 as envisaged under section 50 of the Tenancy Act. I therefore think it not necessary in the interest of justice to give the petitioner the opportunity to adduce further evidence who did not avail of the same when provided by the Additional Commissioner. I find no infirmity in the impugned order.

(3.) IN the result the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed with no costs. Petition dismissed.