RAMAKRISHNA AJABRAO AND OTHERS Vs. VITHAL LAXMAN VANMALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ajabrao who was admittedly a tenant in respect of the field property in dispute had filed the present petition. During pendency of this petition, he expired as a result his three sons have been joined as petitioners. Respondent is a landholder.

(2.) On 18-5-1964 the landholder respondent got possession of the property from the erstwhile tenant on the ground that it was needed for bona fide personal cultivation. It appears that even after taking possession of the property on that ground, the field was not cultivated as a result of the proceeding under section 52 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was initiated. These proceedings terminated in favour of the tenant on 24-4-1969. Consequently, the possession was restored to him on 5-11-1969. Sometime afterwards, the tenant filed an application on 29-1-1971 under section 49-A of the Act for fixation of the purchase price. These proceedings were registered as Revenue Case No. 1/59 (13-A)/70-71 of Hatgaon, before the Tenancy Naib-Tahsildar, Murtizapur, decided on 31-7-1971. In these proceedings, the respondent filed a written statement purporting to bear the date 24-4-1971 which came to be filed on 11-5-1971 as the order sheets record. Amongst the various pleas that the respondent raised, one was that he was a person under disability unable to do any sort of work and labour. He stated that he was always sick from acute pain in the stomach and had a stunted growth. His age was 36 but he looked merely like a boy. He is also of unsound mind and as he was a person under disability the purchase price could not be determined under the circumstances. In the concluding part of the written statement, there is a mention that he is filing the copy of his birth register and a medical certificate about the state of his health. Though it appears from the record that these documents, namely, birth register and medical certificate were not filed on 11-5-1971 along with the written statement but on the next date which was 28-5-1971 the said two documents came to be filed on the record. It is worthwhile noting that on that day the case was adjourned to 18-6-1971 for producing record-of-rights and crop-statements but later on at the request of Shri Pande, the Advocate for the respondent-landlord these two documents came to be filed. The Medical certificate which is at Record Page 25 in the hand-writing of a registered medical practitioner supports each and every statement of the respondent in the written-statement and clearly mentions about his incapacity of cultivating the land either by personal labour or supervision. From 28-5-1971 till 26-7-1971 there have been as many as five hearings. On 21-7-1971 it appears that even the arguments in the case were heard and the parties had sought some time to produce copies of certain decided cases and for that purpose the case was fixed on 26-7-1971. On this day, the tenant filed one application for amendment and also a Pursis admitting the contention of the tenant regarding his disability. The tenant was represented at that time by the Advocate Shri Pande. After, this, the case was fixed for order on 31-7-1971. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Murtizapur, came to the conclusion that the application for compulsory purchase was not filed within one year from the date of possession as a result it was barred in terms of section 50 of the Act. Tenants contention that sometime in the month of Oct. 1970 he had attempted to file an application but the same was returned on the ground that it was not accompanied by relevant documents was negatived in the absence of any proof in support of such allegation. The original application which was returned was also not produced on the record. No importance to this aspect of the matter was attached by the Tribunal and in my view rightly. The land holder's contention that he was a disabled person unable to cultivate the land, was not accepted on the ground that he himself had filed previously an application for restoration of land.

(3.) Tenant Ajabrao filed an appeal against this order which was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Murtizapur, on 24-11-1971. He came to the conclusion that in Lower Court the admitted position was that the landholder was a person under disability. On the basis of the material on the record and what was argued before him, the learned Sub-Divisional Officer recorded a finding that the landholder was a man under disability and, therefore, purchase price could not be fixed, thus dropping the proceedings for fixation of purchase price. In terms, the order of the lower Court was set aside.