VIJAYKUMAR BALKRISHNA KULKARNI Vs. SHIVA RAMA ANEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the original landlord of agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 134/6 and 165/10-B situated at Kandgaon, Taluka Karvir, District Kolhapur and by this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, he seeks to impugn the order dated 12th June 1984 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur whereby it allowed the original tenants Revision Application and set aside the order of the Deputy Collector dated 22nd August 1983.

(2.) THE facts which are essential for the disposal of the writ petition are in a narrow compass.

(3.) THE original landlord was born on 17th December, 1955. In the family partition dated 28th July 1956 the said properties fell in the share of the petitioner who was minor and he thus became the landlord. Shiva Rama Anekar, the respondent since deceased, now represented by legal representatives, was the tenant in the said land and on 1st April 1957, i. e. the Tillers Day, he was in possession of the said land as tenant. Since the landlord was minor on Tillers Day, the tenant could not become deemed purchaser of the land in question. It appears that on 24th August 1962, the proceedings initiated under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the Tenancy Act") were dropped since the landlord was minor. The landlord attained the majority on 17th December 1973 and it is the case of the landlord that on 12th December 1974 he sent intimation of his attainment of majority to the tenant by registered post. The landlord also made an application under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act for revision of rent as belonging to weaker section. But the said application was rejected on 24th January 1975 and in appeal also he was unsuccessful. On 4th March 1977 the tenant sent a letter to the landlord intimating his willingness to purchase the land in dispute. The proceedings again were initiated under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act in which the landlord took the plea that the tenant had not exercised his right of purchase within time contemplated under section 32-F (1) (a) and therefore the proceedings under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act deserved to be dropped and the tenant cannot be declared purchaser. The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Karvir, however, by the order dated 31st December 1980 fixed the purchase price and ordered issuance of the purchase certificate under section 32-M of the Tenancy Act. The order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and A. L. T. , Karvir on 31st December 1980 was challenged by the petitioner landlord before the Deputy Collector, Kolhapur who allowed the appeal and by his order dated 22nd August 1993 held that the tenant failed to exercise his right of purchase within the time stipulated under section 32-F of the Tenancy Act and therefore the land should be disposed of in accordance with section 32-P of the Tenancy Act. Upset by the order of the Deputy Collector dated 22nd August 1983, the tenant filed Revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tribunal held that in view of the proceedings initiated by the landlord under section 88-C of the Tenancy Act, the period lost in getting exemption certificate by the landlord must be given credit to the tenant under section 32-F of the Tenancy Act and if such period is excluded, it cannot be said that the tenant did not exercise his option within time. The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 12th June 1984, as stated above, is under challenge.