MADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR Vs. SAVLERAM GOTIRAM TELI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question which arises in this petition filed on behalf of the landholders is whether an application under Section 32 (1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act"), made by the heirs of the original tenant was maintainable.

(2.) Field survey Nos. 88, 89 and 90 of Village Tryambak in Nasik Taluka admittedly were originally cultivated by one Savlaram Gotiram and, according to the landholders, the possession was taken by him after the end of the agricultural year 1954-55 while, according to the claimants the fields were cultivated by the original tenant during the agricultural year 1955-56. The original tenant died in 1959, Neither the original tenant during his lifetime nor the present respondents who are his heirs took any proceedings for being restored to possession of the fields in question until after the Tenancy Act came to be amended and a new provision was added in Section 32 as Subsection (1B) by Act No. 49 of 1969 which came into force on 17th Oct., 1969. It was only after Section 32 (1B) became operative that the Tahsildar started suo motu proceedings in July, 1971 in the exercise of his powers under Section 32 (1B) of the Tenancy Act. The Tahsildar held that the deceased tenant was In possession of the field on 15th June, 1955 which was the appointed day. Admittedly the tenant was dispossessed prior to 1st April, 1957 and the fields had not been transferred by the landholders or were not converted to nonagricultural use at any time and, therefore, since the respondents had expressed their willingness to have the suit lands back and undertook to cultivate personally and further they did not hold any other land as tenant or as owner, an order directing restoration of possession to the respon-dents was passed. In appeal filed againt this order, two main questions were agitated on behalf of the petitioner. One was that the Revenue records showed the cultivation of the deceased Savlaram only up to the year 1954-55 and that in 1955-56 personal cultivation by the landlord was recorded and secondly it was contended before him that the heirs of the original tenant had no right to make such a claim for possession after a period of 12 years had elapsed. The Deputy Collector found that the ingredients of Section 32 (1B) were satisfied and the appeal came to be dismissed. In revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the same points were reagitat-ed and the Tribunal found that the present petitioner No. 1 admitted that the tenant was in possession in the year 1955-56 and that the petitioners had also admitted that fact. With regard to the right of the heirs of the deceased tenant, it was held that Section 32 (1B) does not prohibit restoration of possession of the land to the ex-tenant or his legal heirs even if subsequent to their dispossession by the landlord otherwise than by an order of the Tahsildar they ceased to be agriculturists. The application of the petitioners thus came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The landlords have now filed this petition in which the same two contentions are now raised.

(3.) However, with regard to the first contention that the deceased tenant had not cultivated the fields during the agricultural year 1955-56, it is difficult to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the landholders by Mr. Chopda that the entry in the Revenue records should be accepted in preference to the oral evidence of the landlords themselves. As already pointed out, petitioner No. 1 had clearly admitted that in the year 1955-56 the deceased tenant was in cultivation. With that admission it is difficult to see how it is now open to the petitioners to contend that the fields were not cultivated by the tenant in 195556 and that they lost possession at the end of the agricultural year 1954-55. The finding that the deceased tenant was in possession on 15th June 1955 cannot be disturbed in these proceedings.