UKUNDA DEOBA KORPE Vs. RAMA SABLA DHANGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these two writ petitions, the parties are the same, the subject-matter is the same and the basic facts giving rise to two sets of revenue cases are also the same. For that reason, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The beginning of the story is from 12-3-1963 when the respondent-tenant executed a surrender-deed in writing in favour of the petitioner in respect of field Survey No. 23/3, measuring 18 acres 22 gunthas of mouza Mhaismal, Taluq Pusad in District Yavatmal. Possession of the property was also physically handed-over to the landholder on that day though registration of the document has taken place on 20-5-1963. Ever since 12-3-1963 it is the landholder petitioner who is in possession of the property. On 23-10-1954 suo motu proceedings came to be initiated by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Pusad, for transferring the compulsory ownership of the land to the tenant. Notices were issued to both parties as they were shown as recorded landholder and tenant respectively in the year 1960-61. On 26-3-1971 the statement of both was recorded. The landlord has put his thumb mark and the tenant his signature at the bottom of the statements. The tenant stated that he had taken the property on lease but had voluntarily surrendered and delivered possession of the property to the landholder as the landholder did not have any other field. It was further stated that he was in ownership and possession of 15 acres of land and, therefore, under the circumstances he was not interested to become the owner of the property. The landholder, who seems to be an illiterate person, made a statement that this was the only field property with him and that the tenant had voluntarily surrendered possession without any force on his part. This case was registered as Tenancy Case No. 325/59 (13)/10-F of Mhaismal decided on 2-4-1971. The Tribunal held that the tenant had delivered possession voluntarily and that this was the only land with the landholder and that from the year 1963-64 onwards the landholder has been cultivating the land. As the record shows that the landholder was having the land less than the family holding, the ownership was not transferred on 1-4-1961 but on 1-4-1963 in terms of section 49-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act", and as the possession was taken without the order of the Tahsildar, the Tribunal held that the statement of the respondent about voluntariness of the handing over of the possession had no value. The tenant owned 15 acres of land and as his total limits would not exceed three family holdings, and hence it was held that the land in question is transferred to and vested in the respondent with effect from the tiller's day which in this case was 1-4-1963. After recording these findings, the purchase price was worked out and determined. The landholder carried an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, but he was unsuccessful, the appeal being No. 51/59(13)/71-72 of Mhaismal which came to be dismissed on 5-2-1972.

(3.) After the decision in appeal, the landholder filed an application before the Tahsildar, Pusad, on 3-5-1972 for verification of the surrender deed dated 12-3-1963. These proceedings were registered as T.C. No. 1/59(4-A) of 1971-72 of village Mhaismal in the Court of the Additional Tahsildar, Pusad, decided on 12-5-1972. The Tahsildar held that the application or intimation dated 3-5-1972 was prima facie not acceptable and that the purchase price in respect of the field property was already determined and even the appeal against that Order was rejected. Against the order rejecting the intimation, the appeal was carried at the instance of the landholder and that was registered as Tenancy Appeal No. 122/59(13) of 71-72; decided on 24-7-1972 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad. Though the Sub Divisional Officer held in favour of the landholder that the detailed order should have been passed, the final result of dismissal was not disturbed holding that no enquiry as contemplated under section 20 was necessary as prima facie the application or intimation was not maintainable having not filed within reasonable time. It may be mentioned that this appeal was also rejected without issuing notice to the other side. The orders in these two proceedings were challenged by the landholders before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The revision in respect of proceedings for transfer of ownership was registered as No. Ten A-510/72 whereas in respect of other proceeding it was registered as No. Ten-A-1106/72. Both these revisions were decided on one and the same day, namely, 2-8-1973. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal did not find any case for interference in either of the proceedings and thus the orders passed were maintained. Special Civil Application No. 301 of 1974 is in respect of the proceedings for transfer of ownership, whereas Special Civil Application No. 341 of 1974 is in respect of the proceedings for verification of surrender.