DATTU DNYANU PADALKAR Vs. HARI NATHA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Special Civil Application has been referred to the Full Bench by the learned Single Judge of this Court, as he found that there was conflict of views between two Division Benches of this Court on the real meaning and interpretation of Section 88 (1) (a) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "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 the 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 Kolhapur State with erstwhile Bombay State and the present Manarashtra State, the properties of the Devasthan 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 highest bidder and, therefore, an Eksali tenant for all the years 1955-56 to 1967-68. It appears that the matter was under consideration of the Government as to how the management of the public trusts should be conducted hereafter. The Collector took no action in the matter, and the petitioner continued in possession of the land. From the year 1969, a Committee, called the Deosthan Mandal, 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 No. 2 Deosthan Mandal were so vested with the management they gave 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 an application for such declaration under Section 70 (b) of the Tenancy Act before the Tahsildar concerned. The Tenancy Aval Karkun by his order dated 30th September 1969 found that the petitioner was in vahiwat of the disputed land from the year 1857-58, and was entitled to a declaration that he was a tenant of the land. This decision was challenged before the Special Deputy Collector by respondent No. 1, who was being styled as the sub-lessee of the petitioner. By his order dated 8th May 1970, the Special Deputy Collector held that the petitioner was undoubtedly cultivating the land for a long time, but this being a land covered by the provisions of Section 88 (1) (a) of the Tenancy Act, the Tenancy Act did not apply at all. He, therefore, dismissed his original petition, and held that he was not a tenant of the land under the Tenancy Act