DHANWANT PARASHRAM KADAM Vs. PUTLABAI GULAB KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in MRT.NS.I 10/91 (Tnc.8.17/91). The undisputed facts in the present case are as follows:

(2.) Respondent No. 3 (against whom the petition has been dismissed) was the owner of the land bearing gat No. 59/7 admeasuring 1 hectare 80 ares and gat No. 556 admeasuring approximately 8 hectares. One Hari Narayan Kadam the grandfather of the petitioner herein was the tenant of the land on 1.4.1957 i.e. on the tiller s day. Proceedings Under Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act commenced in 1965. However, Respondent No. 3 at that point of time was a minor and therefore, the consideration of the enquiry under Section 32G for half of the land was postponed. The enquiry in respect of half of the land was completed on 11.1.1965 by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Koregaon (for short, hereinafter referred to as the 'ALT') in case No. 467 of 1965. The ALT held that Hari Narayan Kadam was the sole tenant of both the lands on tiller s day and, therefore was the deemed purchaser and owner of the lands. The purchase price was fixed and paid to the original owner. Hari Narayan Kadam died on 15.4.1965. However, during his lifetime, he informed the Tehsildar that the name of his elder son Parshuram should be included in the record of rights as he wished to give his land to his eldest son, Parshuram. Parshuram died in 1977. The petitioner is the son of Parshuram.

(3.) Since the enquiry in respect of the remaining half of the land was yet to be conducted it was commenced in 1987. It appears that the case number allotted for the enquiry was the same as was allotted for the other half of the land being Case No. 467 of 1965. This was so despite the fact that the enquiry was commenced in 1987 for that half of the land. It appears that the ALT, Koregaon, without notice to all the heirs of the Hari Narayan Kadam who was declared a tenant of the entire land, commenced proceedings in respect of the second half of the land. This enquiry had been postponed as stated above because Respondent No. 3 the land owner was a minor when the enquiry Under Section 32G in respect of the first half of the land was conducted in 1965. It appears that the ALT proceeded with the enquiry without considering the fact that Hari Narayan Kadam was declared the tenant of the land much earlier. Notice was only issued to one Gulab Hari Kadam, one of the four sons of Hari Narayan Kadam. Accordingly, the enquiry was completed when only Respondent No. 3 and Gulab Hari Kadam were present. The ALT held, by relying on the statement of Respondent No. 1 i.e. the wife of Gulab Hari Kadam, that the latter was the tenant of the land. The purchase price was fixed on 30.10.1987. Respondent No. 1 accordingly, got her name mutated in the record of rights by mutation entry No. 16112. It appears that thereafter the petitioner was dispossessed of the lands in his possession for which the petitioner has adopted other remedies for redressal of his grievance.