RAMKRISHNA JAGANNATH JAJODIYA Vs. KALYAN SHANKARRAO JADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri B.S.Deshpande, Advocate, for the petitioner. None present for the respondent (Shri J.R. Kidilay, learned Counsel for the respondent appeared after dictation is over)

(2.) The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order passed by the Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, in Revision Application No. Ten-A-42/1992, dated 28th July, 1997, in original application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was declared to be the tenant and was declared to be entitled to purchase the suit land i.e. Gat No. 339, area 3.69 hectare of Mouza Mahankal, belonging to the respondent, in the proceedings, he had preferred the application i.e. Application No. 656/1990, before the Tahsildar, Wardha, in Case No. 1/59-13/1986-87, of Mouza Mahakal, Tq. & Distt. Wardha, which was an application under Section 50, 100(2) and 41 to 44 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. He had succeeded in that application and got the order in his favour against the respondent, for purchase of the said land.

(3.) The respondent challenged that order by filling the Tenancy Appeal No. 59/13/6/89-90 of Mouza Mahakal before the Sub Divisional Office, Wardha. He by order dated 13th April, 1992, allowed that appeal. He set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar, Wardha, in favour of the petitioner. The reasons for coming to this conclusion were that the petitioner had failed to produce any sufficient evidence to prove his tenancy before the Tahsildar as well as before the S.D.O. in respect of the suit land. He found that there are no entries in the land record showing the petitioner to be in possession of the suit land. It was his finding that the petitioner could not produce any documentary evidence, particularly the lease agreement, rent receipts, account of the expenditure, green card etc. He also noticed that the evidence and certificate issued by Talathi, dated 26.11.1985 in favour of the petitioner to show him in cultivating possession of the suit land was not borne out. For these main reasons, he had allowed the appeal.