HARI NINU GHODE Vs. JAGUBAI SHIVALING TAKALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The factual matrix leading to this petition is that the present respondents who are the landlords had submitted an Application under Section 33-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act for short) for restoration of the lands for the personal bonafide cultivation. The details of the land located in Kokrud Village, Taluka Shirala, District Sangli are as under:-

(2.) In Tenancy Case No. 2 of 1966, the Awal Karkun held that the applicants are certified landlady and the opponents were in possession of the suit land for cultivation. The applicants had given notice to the cultivators as required under the Act and the suit filed by the applicants. He further held that the suit was filed in time and the subject land stood in the name of the applicants or their ancestral as on 1/1/1952 and thereafter. It was further held that the applicants did not obtain possession of the land as per Section 31 of the Act. The applicants had made out the case of personal bonafide cultivation and the land stood in the name of Government as per Mutation Entry No. 2032, the application was not required to be dismissed. In Appeal before the SDO, the SDO also referred to Mutation Entry No. 2032 which was effected on 25/10/1955 whereby the Government s name was entered under Section 88(1)(a) and Section 33-A of the Act. It appears that the landlady had also obtained 88-C certificate which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Authority and the same was challenged before this court in Special Civil Application No. 275 of 1969 which was decided on 3/5/1975. In the said order it was noted that the certificate holders had become certified landlords and tenants had become excluded tenants. It was also noted that the present petitioners were Mirashi tenants and their rights are saved under Section 8 of the Bombay Paragana and Kulkarni Watans Abolition Act. The Lower Appellate Court i.e. SDO also agreed with the findings recorded by the Awal Karkun and was pleased to dismiss the appeal. In the revision application, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal agreed with the view of both the Awal Karkun as well as the SDO.

(3.) Exemption Certificate was received by the landlords on 13/1/1966 and thereafter the notice was issued to the opponents i.e. present petitioners on 24/3/1966 and the same was issued within the prescribed period as per the provisions of the Act. The landlords names were entered in the record of right in respect of subject land. Shri Dattu Shirambekar, the father of the respondents did not only remain as mirashi tenant but had become the full owner of the suit lands. In any case the finding recorded by this court in Special Civil Application No. 275 of 1969 had reached finality and the concurrent view taken by all the three authorities below i.e. Awal Karkun, SDO and the MRT is based on the said findings of this court. In these obtaining circumstances, it cannot be said that the concurrent view taken by all the authorities below suffers from any errors or perversity calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.