SAKINABIBI RAJABALI BOHRI Vs. GOPAL HIRU GHARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question falls for determination in this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed to challenge the correctness of order dated January 8, 1974, passed by the Full Bench of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay. It is necessary to set out a few facts to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties to these proceedings. The petitioner is owner of an agricultural piece of land bearing Gat No. 114/1 admeasuring 4 acres 24 gunthas and situated at village Usrali Khurd in Panvel taluka of Kolaba district. The land was leased to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was under their cultivation on April 1, 1957. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to purchase the land on the tillers' day and accordingly the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Panvel, commenced proceedings under the provisions of Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) . Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 declined to purchase the suit land and thereupon the Agricultural Lands Tribunal passed an order on August 17, 1966, declaring the purchase ineffective. The order was passed toy the Agricultural Tribunal under the provisions of Section 32G(3) of the Act. In pursuance of this order, the Agricultural Land Tribunal directed that proceedings should be commenced under the provisions of Section 32P of the Act for disposal of land not purchased by the respondents -tenants.

(2.) THE Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal Panvel, commenced proceedings under Section 32P of the Act and directed that the land be restored to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 32P(2)(6) read with Section 15(2) of the Act. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal found that the conditions of Section 31 and Section 31A of the Act with reference to the purpose and to the extent of area are satisfied by the landlady and accordingly the order for restoration of the land was passed in favour of the petitioner on April 26, 1972.

(3.) MR . Limaye, the learned counsel appearing in support of the petition contended that the view taken by the Assistant Collector and the Revenue Tribunal is entirely erroneous and the provisions of the Tenancy Act were not properly appreciated. The learned counsel contended that the provision of Section 32P(2)(6) does provide that the land should be surrendered to the former landlord subject to the provisions of Section 15, but it only means that the conditions regarding the purpose as provided under Section 31 and the extent as provided under Section 31A would be applicable.