KESHAV BABLO GAWDE Vs. RAMAKANT KHANDEPARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions have arisen on account of same judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Appln. No. 78/89. Writ Petition No. 307/92 is filed by a mundkar and Writ Petition No. 390/92 is filed by the landlord. The landlord had filed a civil suit for eviction of Keshav Bablo Gawde and in that suit, Keshav Gawde had taken the plea that he along with his 4 brothers were occupying the house as mundkars. Accordingly, the Civil Court had referred the issue of Mundkarship to the Mamlatdar. Before the Mamlatdar, the landlord Ramakant Khandeparkar had submitted that due to floods, he had offered to the Government his land lying at higher level for being divided into plots to be allotted to the occupants of the house who were affected due to flood and that accordingly, the family of Keshav Gawde and his brothers were jointly given 5 plots in Survey No. 67/1; that though his other brothers had shifted from the house, Keshav Gawde did not shift. The Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that Keshav Gawde and his brothers were staying in a joint family; that the land allotted to and accepted by other members of the joint family could not be said to have been given independently to those members of the family only; that the house consisted of 100 sq. meters and the right of Keshav Gawde could be of 25 sq. meters to which at the most he would be entitled. The Mamlatdar also came to the conclusion that the respondent and his three brothers were mere care-takers and in view of the said findings, the claim of Keshav Gawde was dismissed.

(2.) THIS judgment of the Mamlatdar was challenged by Keshav Gawde before the Additional Collector, who came to the conclusion that the respondent fulfilled all the requirements of mundkarship and once he was declared as mundkar, he was entitled to purchase 300 sq. meters area and reconstruct house being of 71 sq. meters only, the said Keshav Gawde had not contravened any of the provision of the Act. The Additional Collector thus declared Keshav Gawde to be mundkar entitled to purchase 300 sq. meters of land. The matter was carried to the Administrative Tribunal by the landlord Ramakant Khandeparkar. It was contended before the Administrative Tribunal that the offer which was made to Keshav Gawde and his three brothers, was a joint offer; that the three brothers have accepted the offer and shifted to the plots A to C; that previously a joint application filed by Keshav Gawde and his brothers for registration as mundkars under section 29 had been dismissed for default and no further application for mundkarship could lie. Alternatively, it was argued that assuming that the respondent had the right of mundkar in the suit house, his right was restricted to only two rooms, which he was occupying in the old house and that taking into consideration that the area of the house was 100 sq. meters, Keshav Gawde was entitled for reconstruction on 25 sq. meters area, but he had constructed house covering 75 sq. meters. Learned Advocate for the landlord thus argued before the Administrative Tribunal that the respondent would only be entitled for an area of 25 sq. metres as house and 1/4th of 300 sq. meters, including the land where the house stands. This alternate argument of learned Advocate for the landlord was accepted by the Administrative Tribunal and I am at loss to understand as to how the landlord can now have the grievance in the matter.

(3.) BE that as it may, learned Advocate Shri Sonak argued for the mundkar Keshav Gawde that the reference which was made to the Mamlatdar was to find out whether the respondent was mundkar of the house and not that he was the mundkar of the part of the house, the Administrative Tribunal should not have taken into consideration that the other brothers had left, so as to reduce the area of the suit house and restrict it to 25 sq. meters only in so far as the Mundkar Keshav Gawde is concerned and that the said Keshav Gawde would be entitled to 300 sq. meters of land as mundkar.