VITHAL Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition involves the question as to what meaning should be given to the word "ancestor" used in section 38(3)(d) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. Field survey number 24/1, area 4 acres, 37 gunthas of village Gaulkhed, taluq Akot, district Akola, was owned by one Nathu son of Ramji Kunbi. Nathu died on 31-7-1959. He had executed a will on 22-11-1957 by which he bequeathed the field to the present petitioner Vithal Kisan. Vithal is the grand-son of the sister of Nathu's wife, that is, the sister of Nathu's wife was the grand-mother of the present petitioner and it is not disputed that the two families are entirely different. The petitioner's name came to be recorded in the revenue papers as tenure-holder on 27-5-1960 and he started proceedings for resumption of possession of the disputed field on the ground that he required the land for personal cultivation. The Naib-Tahsildar granted the application of the petitioner and directed the tenant to deliver possession of this field survey No. 24/1 to the petitioner.

(2.) The tenant filed an appeal against this order and the Special Deputy Collector, who decided the appeal, took the view that the petitioner had not satisfied the requirement of section 38(3)(d) of the Tenancy Act. He, therefore, allowed the appeal. The petitioner then filed a revisional application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Tribunal took the view that the petitioner had failed to show that the deceased Nathu was his ancestor. The revision application was, therefore, rejected. The petitioner has now filed this petition challenging the orders passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Special Deputy Collector.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner was a relative of the deceased tenure-holder Nathu and that his name having been recorded on 27-5-1960 in the revenue records and that before that the name of deceased Nathu stood recorded in the revenue records, he must be taken to have satisfied the requirements of section 38(3)(d) of the Tenancy Act. His contention is that the Revenue Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the revision application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to show that Nathu was his ancestor.