LAWS(BOM)-1979-3-10

DATTA DNYANU PADALKAR Vs. DEOSTHAN SAMITI WESTERN MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 21, 1979
DATTU DNYANU PADALKAR Appellant
V/S
DEOSTHAN SAMITI WESTERN MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Spl. C. A. has been referred to the Full Bench by the single Judge of this Court, as he found that there was conflict of views between the 2 D. Bs. of this Court on the real meaning and interpretation of sec. 88(1 )(a) of the Tenancy Act.

(2.) The facts in this case do not seem to be in dispute. We will refer to some of the Vat Hukums of the erstwhile Kolhapur regime. It is enough to state that in case of all public trusts, the Kolhapur Darbar was managing the properties, and by orders passed from time to time the mode of management and control by the Darbar over them were Indicated. It will be 'equally clear from the Referring Judgment that after the merger of the Kolhapur State with the erstwhile Bombay State and the oresect Maharashtia State, the properties of the Deostban in question were being let out on Eksali basis on auction by the Collector of Kolhapur. The petitioner gave a bid at one such auction in 1955 56 and was made a tenant of the properties in view of his highest bid. By the same process he continued to be the higest bidder and therefore an Eksali tenant for all years from 1955-56 to 1967-68. It appers that the matter was under consideration of the Government as to how the management of public trusts should be conducted hereafter. The Collector took no action In the matter, and the petitioner continued to be in possession of the land. From the year 1959, at Committee, called the Deosthan Mardal was appointed for the Western Region for the management of the Public Trusts. By a Gazette Notification, the public trusts were indicated,

(3.) When the Committee or the respondent 2 Deosthan Mandal were so Vf sted with the management, they gave a notice to the petitioner to quit the land. The petitioner then took up the position that he was the tenant under the provisions of the Tenancy Act and filed ah application for such a declaration u/sec. 70(b) before the Tahsildar concerned. The T. A. K by his order dated 30-9-1969 found that the petitioner was in vahivat of the disputed land from 1957-58 and was entitled to a declaration that he was a tenant of the land. This decision was challenged before the Spl. Dy. Collector by the respondent 1, who was being styled as the sub-lessee of the petitioner. By this order dated 8-5-70, he held that the petitioner was undoubtedly cultivating the land for a long time, but this being the land covered by the provisions of sec. 88(1) (a); the Tenancy Act did not apply at all. He, therefore, dismissed the original petition of the petitioner and held that he was not a tenant of the land under the Tenancy Act.