GARBAD DHANU DHANGAR Vs. PANDURANG ANNAJI ATHAWALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are being disposed of together in as much-as common questions of law are involved therein. The petitioners are claiming tenancy rights in respect of various agricultural lands.

(2.) There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Annaji Vinayak Athawale was owner of the various suit lands. He died on 28th January, 1947. At the time of his death, plaintiff Pandurang was his only son and was minor. The agricultural lands and other properties of the minor-plaintiff Pandurang were taken over under management of the Court of Wards with effect from 22nd December, 1947. The management of the suit lands was subsequently transferred to the Collector, Jalgaon, from 1st June, 1954. The plaintiff-Pandurang attained majority and, therefore, the management was terminated from 24th October, 1964.

(3.) While the suit lands were under management of the Collector, Jalgaon, the latter filed Tenancy Applications No. 12/1960 to 17/1960 for declaration that the present petitioners were not tenants of the respective suit lands in as much as the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "BT & AL Act") was not applicable due to exemption of the said lands under section 88 from applicability of the relevant provisions. The applications were dismissed by the Tahsildar, Raver. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff-Pandurang preferred Tenancy Appeals No. 243 to 248 of 1961 through his guardian. All the said appeals were allowed and the Appellate Tenancy Tribunal held that the suit lands were exempted from operation of the BT & AL Act. The Appellate Court further held that the question of recovery of possession may arise when the suit lands were released from management of the Court of Wards. The petitioners and others preferred Revision Applications bearing Nos. 972, 998, 999, 1000 and 1001 of 1961. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) held that Proviso added to Amending Act No. 15 of 1957 to section 88 of the BT & AL Act cannot be construed to mean that the rights accrued to the persons claiming the tenancies were affected. The M.R.T. also held that the applications filed by the landlord through the Collector were not maintainable. Thereafter, Special Civil Application No. 958 of 1965 was filed by the plaintiff-Pandurang, through his guardian-Collector, in this Court, challenging the judgement dated 17th January, 1964 rendered by the M.R.T. in those five revision applications. It was held that the lands in question were exempted from the operation of the provisions of the BT & AL Act. This Court held that the findings of the Tenancy Tribunal were not binding on the parties. This Court, however, held that the M.R.T. was right in disposing of the applications filed by the Collector as the same were not maintainable.