HARI KATI BODE Vs. RAMBHAU NARAYAN GADEWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hari Bode was the tenant of field survey No. 17, area 13.6 acres of Mouza Hivardara, in Taluka Wani, District Yeotmal. Respondent No. 1 Rambhau was the tenure-holder of that field. On February 23, 1961 the petitioner executed a document purporting to be a surrender deed in favour of Rambhau, surrendering his tenancy rights in his favour. An application for verification of the surrender under Sec. 20 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act) was filed on February 26, 1961. Before the surrender was accepted by the Tahsildar, Rambhau sold the filed on March 7, 1961 to respondents Nos. 2 to 4. After the petitioner came to know about this, he applied the very next day i.e. on March 8, 1961 for the cancellation of the surrender. On March 29, 1961, the Naib Tahsildar passed an order holding that the surrender is voluntary and accepted the surrender. It may be mentioned at this stage that the petitioner was never informed by the Tahsildar about the passing of this order dated March 29, 1961. This has been so found by all the authorities including the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur.

(2.) On November 13, 1961, the petitioner made an application to the Tahsildar under Sec. 36 of the Tenancy Act alleging therein that he was a tenant of the field, that the landlord Rambhau gave him notices under Sec. 38 of the Tenancy Act on December 30, 1960 and on February 13, 1961 asking for the possession of the land for personal cultivation, that respecting his request and also at the intervention of the villagers, he (the petitioner) executed the surrender-deed on February 23, 1961, that instead of cultivating the field by himself, the landlord Rambhau sold the field to non-applicants Nos. 2 and 3 within two to four days from the surrender deed. The petitioner also alleged in that application that he had sent an application by post by about March 8, 1961 to the Tahsildar playing that the surrender be not accepted which was received by the Tahsildar on March 9, 1961; however, his complaint was not taken cognisance of and the landlord and the purchasers dispossessed him of the field forcibly by telling him that the surrender was accepted. The petitioner lastly averred in this application that the act of the landlord and the purchasers in dispossessing him was illegal and prayed for restoration of the land and damages. This application was separately registered as Revenue Case No. 77/59(8)/60-61. This case came up for hearing on March 22, 1962. At the hearing of this case, the respondent Rambhau was present. A certified copy of the order dated March 29, 1961 showing that the Tahsildar had accepted the surrender as valid was produced by the respondent in the said case filed by the petitioner for restoration of the land. The petitioner's application for restoration of possession was dismissed on March 22, 1962 on the ground that Tahsildar had already accepted the surrender.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that on this .date, that is to say on March 22, 1962, he came to know about the order dated March 29, 1961 passed by the Tahsildar holding the surrender to be valid and accepting the same. According to the petitioner on coming to know of this order on March 22, 1962 he filed an application on May 1, 1962 to the Sub Divisional Officer. It appears that that application was not filed through any counsel. It was not headed either as an appeal or a revision. It appears that this application was forwarded by the Sub Divisional Officer to the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar for immediate enquiry and disposal. Accordingly, the Naib Tahsildar made enquiries and submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer on August 20, 1962. In this report, the Naib Tahsildar pointed out that the Revenue Officer who accepted the surrender had not made proper enquiries into the reasons of surrender as per amended Rule 11 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Rules, 1959; further the order of verification of surrender was also not communicated to the tenant and that he learnt about that order in March 1962. The Tahsildar, therefore, proposed that the order passed by the Revenue Officer declaring the surrender deed to be valid be set aside under Sec. 110 of the Tenancy Act and an order for fresh enquiry into the verification of surrender be passed. The Naib Tahsildar submitted his report to the Sub Divisional Officer on August 20, 1962.