LAWS(BOM)-1997-6-74

JAGANNATH MALLAPPA WALE Vs. MAHARUDRA MAHALING TODKAR

Decided On June 11, 1997
Jagannath Mallappa Wale Appellant
V/S
Maharudra Mahaling Todkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner aggrieved by the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, in Revision Application No.MRT-SS-213/87 dated 13th April 1988 has preferred this writ petition. A brief narration of the facts may be necessary for disposal of this petition.

(2.) THE Petitioner who was the owner of agricultural land described under Survey Nos. 582/2 and 582/6 sold the same by a Sale Deed dated 25th September 1972 for a consideration of Rs.7,000/- to the Respondent. It transpires that in some cognate proceedings suo moto proceedings were taken by the Tahsildar to proceed with under Section 63 read with section 84C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 on the ground that the Respondent was not an agriculturist and as such the purchase was null and void. Subsequent to that the Petitioner herein also moved such an application. It was earlier the contention of the Petitioner herein that there was no Sale Deed but in fact it was a loan arrangement. On the application of the Petitioner, the Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No.1 of 1983 allowed the application and declared that the transfer of suit land by the present Petitioner in favour of Respondent under the registered Sale Deed for Rs.7,000/- on 25th September, 1972 is invalid under Section 84C(3) of the said Act. He further directed that the suit land vests in the Government free from all encumbrances thereon and that the suit land should be disposed in the manner provided by law.

(3.) PETITIONER aggrieved by the said judgment preferred a revision before the Revisional Authority viz. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Revenue Tribunal reversed the orders of the Tahsildar and the Appellate Authority on the ground that evidence on record had not been considered and held that the Sale Deed in favour of the Petitioner was legal and valid, that the Petitioner had established that he was an agriculturist at the time he purchased the agriculture land and consequently allowed the revision application.