DAGADU Vs. RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The material question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal while exercising the powers conferred upon it by Section 98 of the (hereinafter referred to as the Vidarbha Tenancy Act) can make a reference under Section 125 to the Tahsildar for deciding the issue of Tenancy.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be the tenant of the lands bearing S. Nos. 72/1, 74/1 and 74/4 situate at Toe, a village in Washim tahsil of Akoia District. These lands admittedly belong to respondent No. 1. Suo motu proceedings were commenced under Section 48 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act for transferring ownership of above mentioned lands in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 disputed petitioner's claim that he is a tenant of the lands in question. According to respondent No. 1, the petitioner is his partner in cultivation of the lands. The Agricutural Lands Tribunal, presumably on the assumption that it had no jurisdiction to decide the question about tenancy, made a reference under Section 125 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act to the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar, Washim for decision of the following issues:- (1) Whether the recorded tenant Da-gadu s/o Konduji of Toe, Tahsil Washim, District Akola is a tenant of field S. Nos. 71/1 and 74/1 area 5 acres 4 gunthas and 0 acres 35 gunthas 74/4 area 20 acres of village Toe shown as owned by Raoji Saturaji of village Adoli. (2) If so since when? (3) Whether he was in possession of the field in question on 1-4-1961 or 1-4-1963 as a tenant? (4) Whether still he is in possession of the land in question? (5) How much total land is held by the alleged tenant?

(3.) The reference was heard by the Additional Tahsildar, Washim. He held that the petitioner is not the tenant of the lands in question, that he was not tenant of the lands on 1-4-1961 and 1-4-1963 and that he was not in exclusive possession of the lands on these material dates. This order was confirmed by the Special Deputy Collector in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The revision application preferred by the petitioner to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was also dismissed. The petitioner, therefore, moved the High Court by an application under Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing the orders passed against him by the Tenancy Authorities in the suo motu proceedings. The petition was allowed by the High Court on the ground that the matter involved in the petition called for reconsideration of the entire controversy between the parties. The matter, therefore, was remanded back to the Appellate Court for hearing the appeal afresh according to law. After remand, the appeal was decided by the Special Deputy Collector on the basis of the evidence already on record, as agreed to by the parties, and confirmed his original finding that the petitioner is not the tenant of the lands in question. The petitioner, being aggrieved by this order, preferred Revision Application No. Ten-A-58/76 to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. At the hearing of this revision application, it was contended for the first time that the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was not competent to make a reference under Section 125 of the Vidarbha Tenancy Act, that the Additional Tahsildar therefore, had no jurisdiction to decide the reference and hence all the proceedings, which arose out of this reference were bad in law and must be quashed. The Revenue Tribunal rejected the contention holding that the material question was not whether the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was competent to make reference but the material and decisive fact was whether the authority receiving the reference was competent to decide the issues. The Tribunal also held that the objection about jurisdiction was never raised before by the petitioner who had subjected himself to the jurisdiction of the Additional Tahsildar and hence the contention in that behalf is barred by constructive res judicata. Being aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner has again approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.