NARAYAN SITARAM JADHAV Vs. SHAIKH MUSTAK MAHAMAD SARIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners original tenants have filed this writ petition and challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 4-4-1985 passed in the revision application bearing No. NS VIII-6/83 (Ten B. No.220/83) wherein the Revenue Tribunal has allowed the revision application and set aside the order of the Sub-Divisional officer dated 11-10-1982 and restored the order of the Tenancy Aval Karkun dated 31-1-1979 and restored possession of the land admeasuring 3 acres 12 gunthas from the northern side of Gat No.250 of village Nale, Tal. Satara. THE petitioners while challenging this order have also annexed the earlier order passed by the authority viz. the proceedings initiated by one Shaikh Mustak Mohammed Sharif against the original tenant Shri Anna Sitaram Jadhav and others in the court of the Tenancy Aval Karkun, Satara when the said Shaikh Mustak, uncle of the present respondent has initiated proceedings under section - 31 read with section - 29 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sought for possession of the suit land after terminating tenancy of the tenants.

(2.) I have heard counsel for the parties at length and I was taken through the judgment under challenge in this writ petition as well as the order passed by the authority earlier in respect of the proceedings initiated by Shaikh Mohammed Hussain against the original tenant Shri Anna Sitaram Jadhav. As some of the documents and the deposition of Shaikh Mohammed was in Marathi, I had directed the office to get the translation of deposition of the said witness Shaikh Mohammed Sharif Abdulla and accordingly I have gone through the deposition of Shaikh Mohammed Sharif Abdulla.

(3.) AGAINST the said order of the Tenancy Awal Karkun dated 30-3-1972 the landlord has filed appeal before the Special Deputy Collector, Satara and the said appeal was registered being Tenancy Appeal No.24/72. The special Deputy collector, Satara, on examining the record and the order under challenge has held that no error has been committed by the trial court and accordingly while rejecting the appeal observed that it is not necessary to discuss the evidence and as observed in paragraph-2 of his order, he mainly relied upon the earlier proceedings initiated in respect of the suit land and the decision made by the authority on the application filed under section 29 (2) and under section-31 of the Act filed by uncle of the appellant rejecting the same as back as on 21-9-1957 and the said decision has become final as that decision was not challenged and while considering provisions of sections 32 (1) (b) (iii) of the Act, the tenant becomes deemed purchaser of the suit land on the postponed date i. e. on 21-9-1957 and as the application made earlier by the landlord was rejected, the said decision has become final and there is no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and accordingly he has held that the application itself is not tenable in law. Accordingly the appeal filed by the landlord was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector by order dated 29-1-1973.