CHABAN BHAU PHULARI Vs. SURESH VITHAL PHULARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision application No. MRT-AS-I-12 of 1985.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Tribunal has committed error of law by allowing the revision application of respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and by restoring the order of the Tahsildar A.L.T. Nagar Division, Ahmednagar and the said error is apparent on the face of record. Learned counsel submits that Sections 37 and 39 of said Act are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case, as the suit land was voluntarily surrendered by the original tenants. Learned counsel submits that in terms of provisions of Section 15 of the said Act, the tenant may terminate the tenancy in respect of his land at any time by surrendering his interest in favour of landlord, provided that such surrender shall be in writing and has to be verified before the Mamlatdar in the prescribed manner. After recording the verification, learned Mamlatdar has accepted the surrender being voluntary and unconditional and as such, subsequent proceedings for restoration, purportedly under Sections 37 and 39 of the said Act, are not maintainable. Learned counsel submits that the proceedings initiated after a lapse of 22 years and 7 months are not maintainable, as the same are not within limitation. The legal heirs of deceased tenants would not have any right to inherit the property of so called tenants under Section 37 of the said Act since name of one of the tenant being deleted from the array of applicants, before the Tribunal. Learned counsel submits that even in absence of any application for condonation of delay caused in filing Revision before the Tribunal, the said proceedings are also not maintainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that by invoking the provisions of Section 32 of the said Act, the tenants ipso facto cannot be entitled for ownership of disputed property. Learned Member of the Tribunal has exceeded the jurisdiction which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.