VITHAL SUBHANA PATIL Vs. DYANU BANDU KADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original petitioner who purchased the suit property from one Vithal Subhana Patil the original landlord by executing a registered sale deed on 15th April 1969, challenged the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Kolhapur dated 9th January 1984 in revision application MRT SS 47/83 filed by the respondent-original tenant.

(2.) THERE is a checkered history in respect of this litigation as transpired from the record earlier that in respect of the suit land, the matter reached upto Revenue Tribunal and Revenue Tribunal has while examining the record and contentions raised before him as back as on 10th March 1980, on considering the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer Walwa Sub Division, Sangli passed in tenancy appeal no. 57 of 1977 dated 11th November 1978 filed by the present petitioner has dismissed the revision application of the petitioner and held that the declaration sought for by the respondent-tenant and on considering the possession in respect of suit land when the original tenant-respondent no.7 was actually dispossessed and when the said possession was restored in favour of tenant the application submitted by the tenant was treated to be in time. It is only thereafter when the respondent-tenant is declared as a tenant and the sale deed in respect of the petitioner with the original owner dated 15th April, 1969, was declared ineffective and after the respondent-tenant was put to possession and the application submitted by the tenant for the fixation of price, the present petitioner has challenged that the respondent has not exercised his rights to purchase the land within a stipulate time by not giving notice to the landlord.

(3.) AGAINST the said decision of the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. dated 20th June 1981, the petitioner purchaser of the land had preferred appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer Walwa Division, Sangli under section 74 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and it is her case that the applicant has purchased the land by registered sale deed dated 15th April 1969 and when the said sale was challenged at the instance of the tenant, the authority while considering the said appeal, has held in favour of respondent-tenant and as per the order the tenant was put to possession of the land and thereafter, the respondent-tenant has served the notice as prescribed under the Act to purchase the suit land on 25th March 1981 and prayed for fixation of price of the land. It is the contention of the appellant that A.L.T. had no authority to declare the tenant as deemed purchaser in view of the fact that the tenant has failed to give notice within one year after becoming tenant to the landlord and the order passed for fixation of price in favour of tenant and for order regarding issuance of certificate 'under section 32(F) and (M) read with section 43 of the Act, be set aside. It is also the contention of the petitioner-appellant that by purchase of the land under sale deed dated 15th April 1969, the appellant has become owner of the suit land and no notice is served on him. The lower authority, has failed to entertain the application under section 32(G) of the respondent-tenant and said order of the authority is liable to be set aside.