VINAYKUMAR RATANLALJI JAISWAL Vs. NANDRANIBAI KISANLAL JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FIFTY years ago while disposing of Special Civil Application No.330 of 1957 raising similar questions between the predecessors of the present parties, concerning the same property, a Division Bench of this Court observed in para 2 of the judgment in Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others, reported at 1958 Nagpur Law Journal 355 that 'This case has a very chequered history'. History repeats and so we repeat those words.

(2.) THE appellant was a tenant in respect of certain agricultural lands belonging to the respondent-landlord in the Agricultural Year 1951-52. The extent of those lands was said to be about 84 acres. The appellant was entitled to be a protected lessee in respect of 50 acres of those lands in terms of the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951. For the sake of ready reference, those Sections may be usefully reproduced as under:

(3.) THOUGH the chequered history has already been recounted in the judgment in Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others, reported at (1958 Nagpur Law Journal 355), it may be useful to briefly recount the labyrinth of courts thorough which the parties have moved in the last 56 years. On 31-3-1952, the tenant applied for declaration as a protected lessee and determination of lease-money. On 16-5-1952, the landlord applied for termination of tenancy. On 10-7-1952, both the applications were rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. On 13-7-1952, the landlord was placed in possession of the entire lands selected by the tenant in pursuance of a parwana (authority) issued by the Tahsildar. Both the landlord and the tenant appealed against the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 10-7-1952. The tenant's appeal was allowed on 9-8-1952 and the proceedings were remanded back for determining 50 acres of land in respect of which the tenant was to be protected lessee. The landlord's appeal was dismissed on 11-3-1954. When the parties moved the Board of Revenue, the Board of Revenue disagreed with the view of the Deputy Commissioner that it was for the revenue authorities to make the selection, and held that the tenant had a right to select 50 acres of land. The tenant applied on 26-6-1953 indicating his selection. On 31-3-1954, the Sub-Divisional Officer rejected the application. The tenant's appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was allowed on 3-7-1954 and the matter was remanded by the Deputy Commissioner, who also directed the tenant to be placed in possession holding that the parwana was wrongly issued on 4-8-1954. The Board of Revenue maintained the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Since the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951 had been amended inserting Section 4-A therein, when the parties approached the High Court, the matter was remanded by the High Court on 26-7-1955. By order dated 5-1-1957, the Deputy Commissioner held that 49 acres and 29 gunthas of land was duly and legally selected by Ratanlal under Section 4(2) of the Act and an intimation thereof was duly given to the landlord on 7-1-1954. The landlord took an appeal against the said order before the Revenue Tribunal, which, by its order dated 8-8-1957, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional officer for decision on the three questions, namely (1) selection of land, (2) fixation of lease money, and (3) grounds of termination of lease. The Tribunal observed that it had already decided that the tenant had made applications within time and had given necessary intimation in accordance with Section 4-A of the Act and that he must be deemed to be in possession of the land on 1st day of August, 1953. This order of the Tribunal dated 8-8-1957 was subject-matter of Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) No.330 of 1957 by the landlord before this Court. The petition was dismissed by judgment dated 10-4-1958 reported at 1958 Nagpur Law Journal 355 (Lala Jugalkishore (Landholder) v. Bombay Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and others). By this judgment, this Court held that the tenant must be deemed to be in possession on the relevant date, i.e. 1st August, 1953, and also that the tenant had made the necessary selection and served intimation thereof on the landlord.