PANDURANG DNYANDOO PATIL Vs. YESHWANT AMBAJI CHOUGULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main question which arises in these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution is whether the respondent tenant had exercised his right of statutory purchaser under section 32-O of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act" for short) within one year from the commencement of the tenancy.

(2.) THE facts are as follows. The subject matter of dispute are lands bearing survey Nos.90/3 to 90/7, 90/9, 90/10 and 90/12 admeasuring 2 hectares 63 ares situated at village Mhakave, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur ("suit lands" for short). The predecessor in title of the petitioners Dnyandeo Patil was the owner and landlord of the suit lands. During 1957-58 the name of one Tukaram Patil was shown as a tenant in respect of the suit lands. However, it is an admitted position that from 1958-59, the suit lands were cultivated by the original respondent Yeshwant Chougule. According to the landlord, Yeshwant Chougule had unauthorisedly encroached upon the lands since 1958 and on that basis the landlord filed Regular Civil Suit No.48/71 for possession of the suit lands. The suit was resisted by the original respondent contending inter alia that he was the tenant of the lands. Consequently the issue of tenancy was framed by the Trial Court and referred to the Tenancy Court under section 85A of the Act. In the reference proceedings which went upto Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, original respondent was held to be the deemed tenant within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Act. Special Civil Application No.736/77 filed against the order of the Revenue Tribunal was dismissed by this Court.

(3.) IN revision application which was carried by the respondent, the Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 30th January 1985 came to the conclusion that the notice, which was given by the landlord within one year from the date of the decision of the Revenue Tribunal in the reference under section 85A, is a valid notice and in that view of the matter the Revenue Tribunal set aside the judgment of the Appellate Authority and restored that of the Additional Tahsildar & A.L.T.