MOHAN DADU PATIL Vs. RANGARAO SHANKAR PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition arises out of the proceedings under Section 32(1B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'Bombay Tenancy Act'). The lands in dispute are Survey No.1231/8 and 213/1 admeasuring 39 gunthas and 31 gunthas respectively from village Chikurde, Taluka Walva, District Sangli. The Petitioner purchased the same from original owners Dadu Babaji Mane etc, by registered sale deed dated 10-8-1961. It was tenanted land. One Shankar Mahadeo Pawar was the tenant. Respondent nos.1 and 2 herein are the heirs of Shankar Pawar.

(2.) Suo Moto enquiry under Section 32(1B) of Bombay Tenancy Act was started and tenant made a grievance that he was evicted from the lands after the appointed day i.e. 15-6-1955 without obtaining any order from the competent authority. This enquiry was started in the year 1972 by the Additional Tahasildar, Walva. In those proceedings Shankar also claimed possession. However the proceedings were dropped. An appeal was carried by the tenant and the remand order was passed. In view of the remand order the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. Walva held the enquiry afresh. Shankar died during the pendency. Order dated 12-6-1978 was passed holding that Rangrao Shankar and Bhajirao Shankar as tenants on the appointed day the land should be withdrawn from the landlords and handed over to them. This was challenged by the petitioner. The contention raised was that he was not a party to those proceedings even though he has purchased the lands on 10-8-1961. However, the order passed by the Additional Tahasildar and A.LT. No.2 Walva came to confirmed by order dated 21-7-1962. Hence the Petitioner challenged the same by filing the revision. However, the revision come to be rejected by the learned Member of the M.R.T. by 25-6-1984.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised two contentions. He first submitted that the Petitioner was not a party and said suo moto enquiry was held by the Additional Tahasildar and A.L.T. No.2 Walva behind his back and hence he was given no opportunity to present his case. Therefore he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the said authority for giving him opportunity and deciding afresh. He next submitted that provisions of Section 32-1B are not attracted in the case of the petitioner, who is purchaser of the lands, on 10-8-1961.