SHIOSINGH DAULATSING RAJPUT Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises out of an application made by the petitioner Shiosingh for his reinstatement in possession of a field under Section 19(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, 1951.

(2.) THE circumstances under which the petitioner preferred that application before the revenue authorities are as follows: On April 26, 1954, respondent No. 4 Bhikanrao purchased the field, survey No. 56, from respondent No. 5, Chandansingh, by a registered sale -deed. Shiosingh is the brother of Chandan -singh. Shiosingh filed his application under Section 19(2) of the Act on November 8, 1954, alleging that he had cultivated the field in the year 1953 -54, that he was a protected lessee of the said field; that he had been forcibly dispossessed by Bhikanrao; and that, therefore, he should be reinstated in possession.

(3.) THE Sub -Divisional Officer before whom the application came held that Shiosingh had more than 50 acres and since he had not made a selection, the petitioner was not a protected lessee and, therefore, he was not entitled to ask for any redress under Section 19(2) of the Act. In appeal, however, the Deputy Commissioner, Buldana, held that Shiosingh did not hold more than 50 acres since the perepatrak entries were unreliable. He held that respondent No. 4 had admitted that the petitioner had cultivated Survey No. 56 in the year 1953 -54 and was, therefore, deemed to be a protected lessee of that field. In Second Appeal before the Bombay Revenue Tribunal, the decision of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside and the petitioner's original application under Section 19(2) was dismissed. The Tribunal held that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was a protected lessee of the suit land and, therefore, he had no locus standi to make an application under Section 19(2), It also held that since the petitioner was holding more than 50 acres of land, it was incumbent on him to have made a selection as to which 50 acres he desired to continue to hold and since he had failed to make such a selection within the time allowed under Section 4(3) read with Sub -section (2) thereof, he cannot claim to be a protected lessee. Both these conclusions of the Revenue Tribunal are challenged in this petition.