NARAYAN GOPAL UPADHYE Vs. PANDURANG BALIRAM ROMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Dutta for the petitioner and Shri Mandlik for the respondent No. 1 at the out set it is necessary to point out that there is no substance in this petition. The petitioner claims to be the co-owner of the suit land and there is no documentary evidence in his favour to support or to substantiate his contention. Secondly, the petitioner had filed a civil suit for declaration of his rights as a co-owner in the suit land against the respondent and another co-owner, but that suit was dismissed and judgment of the trial Court was upheld up to this Court. Apart from this, the petitioner had also challenged the order dated 31. 10. 1964 by which additional Mamlatdar, North Solapur, sold the suit land to respondent No. 1 under section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 [herein after referred to as 'the Tenancy Act']. However, that challenge was also futile and the petitioner lost. Now this is the third round of litigation, at the instance of the petitioner, challenging the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [herein after referred to as 'm. R. I. '] dated 19th March 1983 passed in the Revision Application of the petitioner dismissing the revision.

(2.) IT was also contended by Ms. Dutta that firstly the petitioner was the co-owner of the property and notices under section 32g of the Tenancy Act should have been issued to him. Secondly, she contended that as laid down by section 32p of the Tenancy Act the petitioner has a right to purchase the land in preference to the right and claim of the respondent because the petitioner is an adjoining owner. Thirdly, she contended that proceedings initiated under section 32g of the Tenancy act could not have been dropped because no notices were issued either to the tenant or to the landlord or to the petitioner who is a person interested therein as contemplated under section 32g of the Tenancy Act. She drew my attention to the statement given by Talathi and reproduced in the order of the Asstt. Collector, solapur dated 11. 1. 1966 at record page No. 10 wherein the Kotwal is alleged to have stated that on 30. 9. 1964 he was not asked to give publication to any notice by beat of drums and the Kotwal was corroborated by others.

(3.) IN fact, when the petitioner has not been able to prove his interest in the suit land and when his claim and contention has been negatived by the civil Court right up to the High Court, he has no locus to file the petition. If at all there is an irregularity in the proceedings under section 32g or proceedings under section 32p of the Tenancy Act it was for the owner on record to take steps. But it is clear that the owner on record has not challenged any of the orders and remained contended by the proceedings initiated under section 32g of the Tenancy Act in which the land was ordered to be sold to the respondent.