SAHEBRAO SHRIPATI GODSE Vs. CHANDAR BHAU CHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the original Opponent No. 1 in the Tenancy Case No. 27 of 1967, is the petitioner herein. The Tenancy Case No. 27 of 1967 of Tenancy Awal Karkun, Khatau, Dist. Satara arises out of an application filed under section 70 (b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act") by the Respondent No. 1 herein. In that application the Respondent No. 1 approached the Mamlatdar for declaration under section 70 (b) of Tenancy Act that he is a protected tenant. In fact 1st respondent was applied under section 70 (b) for the land comprising of Survey No. 55 and Survey No. 78 but ultimately dispute centres reserved only of Survey No. 78. The petitioners claim is that the respondent No. 1 is not the tenant at all. On the other hand the respondent No. 1 contested that he is in possession of 1/4 of land comprising of Survey No. 78. It is the case of the 1st respondent that this extract of Survey No. 78 was in possession of his father which was traced out from 1932. It appears that on account of proceedings initiated under section 32-G in favour of the petitioner, in respect of the said Survey No. the entry of 7/12 extract has been changed and the petitioners name was shown therein in the year 1961. Immediately 1st respondent made a complaint before the concerned village officer on the ground that the said entry was made behind back of the 1st respondent at the time of the Pot Hissa which took place during the year 1958. According to the 1st respondent, while he was in actual possession of the land it is illegal on the part of the Revenue Authority to delete his name in the 7/12 extract and entered the name of the petitioner, there. It is in these circumstances that he filed the application under section 70 (b) as mentioned above.

(2.) THE original authority after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence found that the 1st respondent was the protected tenant, the entry made in favour of the petitioner was deleted. The main evidence that has been relied upon by the original authority that apart from the receipts which show the personal cultivation Exhs. 43 to 51 and land Revenue L. R. Receipts Exhs. 52 to 54 and 58 to 67. The Tenancy Awal Karkun has found the strong and corroborative evidence to establish the possession and cultivation of the 1st respondent, the entries made in the village records. The Tenancy Awal Karkun find that there is an entry in the records, the name of the 1st respondents father was found in the rights column, as protected tenant. However, there is no entry in the lower half col. from the years 1949-50 to 1954-55 but Tenancy Awal Karkun found that there is an entry in the record of rights in the name of father of respondent No. 1, Bhau Mahadu Chambhar as shown as tenant from 1955-56 to 1960-61. On this material available with the original authority it was declared that the 1st respondent who is a protected tenant in terms of section 70 (B) of the Tenancy Act. This finding was based on relevant material entered by the Tenancy Awal Karkun.

(3.) THE petitioner has taken out an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 40 of 1968 before the Court of the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Phaltan Division, Phaltan. The appellate authority though did not up set the finding of the original authority, the matter remanded back to the original authority for considering the material produced by the petitioner. The petitioner contested before the appellate authority that the original authority has not taken into account the legal effect of the proceedings initiated in his favour under section 32-G and also the proceedings filed by the landlord against him under section 31 of the Tenancy Act. On this ground the appellate authority has directed the original authority to consider this aspect earlier. Against that order a Revision filed by the 1st respondent before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur being Revision Application No. MRT/nsv/22/69. The revisional authority though the reason was uncomprehensible from its order, set aside the order of appellate authority and remanded the matter back to the appellate authority again for disposal. The appellate authority after said remand passed a detailed order taking into account the legal effect of the proceedings of 32-G and 31 between the petitioner and the landlord, had come to the conclusion that the declaration made by the original authority that the 1st respondent is a protected tenant was legal and requires no interference. I see from the order of appellate authority, he has confirmed the order of the original authority. Against this order the petitioner approached the revisional authority, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune and Revenue Tribunal, Pune vide its order dated 6th October, 1983 had dismissed the revision. This writ petition is filed to challenge the said order.