ANWARBEG LALBEG Vs. SUKDEO NATHU MALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A somewhat interesting point if law has been raised by Mr. Hussein in this petition though it had not been specifically argued in any of the courts below. Being a pure question of law I have allowed it to be taken up and argued, therefore, I will proceed to decide the same.

(2.) Survey No. 45/2 situated in Village Ozar of Jamner Taluka in Jalgaon District was purchased by one Salimbi and her son Lalbeg in the year 1953. Lalbeg died in the year 1956 leaving behind him four minor sons as his heirs who together with Salimbi thus became the owners of the land. They are the petitioners before me. Respondent No. 1, hereinfter referred to as "the respondent", has at all relevant times been a tenant of the suit land. Further, there is no dispute that on 1st April, 1957, Salimbi was the widow and the other four owners of the land were minors. It is on this ground that proceedings initiated under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, hereinafter referred to as "Tenancy Act", were dropped and as the judgments of the courts below show, the proceedings were postponed to 3rd February, 1961. Thereafter, the proceedings under section 32-G were resumed and in Case No. TNC-ALT-SR-14/8-71, price was fixed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal of Jamner of 5th August, 1971. It may be mentioned here that the judgment of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal refers to the fact that the tenant and the landlords admitted that the family of the landlord was joint family and their individual shares were not divided by metes and bounds. The judgment also mentions that since all the minor sons have become major, necessary notice has been given though it was refused by the landlord.

(3.) The petitioners preferred an appeal being Tenancy Appeal No. 47 of 1971, which was dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Chalisgaon Division by his judgment and order dated 22nd May, 1972. The petitioners carried the proceedings further before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in its revisional jurisdiction by filing an application, being Tenancy Application No. 439 of 1972. One of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that the tenant having not exercised his right of purchase within two years from 3rd February, 1961, when the minor son of Lalbeg became major, the tenant had lost his right of purchase. This argument was rightly rejected by the Tribunal by pointing out the amendment made in 1969. According to this amendment, an intimation should be given within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act. Since that had been done, the challenge made on behalf of the petitioners failed. It has been further mentioned in the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the Advocate of the petitioners did not challenge the legality of the orders passed by the authorities below on any other ground. In view of this fact the Tribunal had no difficulty in dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners by its judgment and order dated 16th December, 1972. That order is the subject matter of the challenge in the present petition.