DAGADU MHASKU DALAVI Vs. SHANKAR NILKANTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges the concurrent decisions of the Tahasildar, Purandar, District Pune, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. All these authorities have negatived the claim of the petitioner by refusing to grant declaration and confir-ation of possession.

(2.) NECESSARY facts to understand the controversy would be as set out hereinafter : The petitioners are legal representatives of one Dagadu Dalvi, being his two sons, daughters Ratnabai and Rangubai and wife Anusaya. Original Respondent Shankar Nilkantha Bokil, was the owner of lands Block Nos.160 and 1301 of village Chambli and Block No.398, situate at village Hivare, Taluka - Purandar, District - Pune, Dagadu was a protected tenant of these lands and it is stated that the lands are with the family since last 50 years, from the time of Dagadu's father Mhasku. Shankar, the landlord filed an application on 29-3-1997 under Section 31 read with section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Tenancy Act') against Dagadu making out a case that he required possession of these lands bonafide for his personal cultivation and this application came to be rejected on 16-9-1957. Thereafter, Shankar applied for grant of exemption certificate under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act and such certificate came to be granted in his favour in November 1961. Shankar died sometime on 24th September 1962 leaving behind 3 sons Raghunath, Shridhar and Gopinath. Gopinath was the eldest amongst brothers and Manager of the Joint Family. He filed application No.277 of 1962 for possession of the lands under Section 33-B of the Tenancy Act against Dagadu. In that application, order came to be passed on 24th March 1965 to the effect that the application is decided on 22nd March 1965 and in pursuance of the settlement between landlord and tenant, the latter has voluntarily surrendered possession of the lands in favour of the landlord and as such application is disposed of. This decision was given by the Tenancy Awal Karkun, Purandar.

(3.) THE Tahasildar, Purandar, enquired into these two applications and recorded evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of both the parties. On consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence, the Tahasildar came to the conclusion that question of validity or otherwise of the alleged surrender could not be gone into by him and he had no jurisdiction to consider that question. That actual possession was handed over to the landlord by the tenant and that tenant Dagadu did not take any steps for challenging the order of delivery of possession since 1965. Tenant failed to prove his possession over the lands. The order of the Tenancy Awal Karkun in Mutation proceeding was bad in law and he was not competent to decide the issue relating to tenancy. It was, therefore, held that the applicant Dagadu failed to prove that he is a tenant of the land and accordingly, the applications came to be rejected.