MARUTI NARAYAN CHAVAN Vs. RAMCHANDRA BHAU SUTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD advocate for the petitioner and respondent Nos. 1a, 1b and 1c. respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are supporting the petitioner.

(2.) THE dispute is arising out of the provisions of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1948") and it is in respect of land Gat No. 44 admeasuring 5 Hectares 24 Are of village Malangaon, Kavathe, Mahankal Tahsil of Sangli District. One Narmadabai was the original landlady and as per the contention of the petitioner one Maruti was the original tenant. Narmadabai died in 1964 and Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar succeeded to the property left by Narmadabai. Similarly, original tenant Maruti died in 1994 i. e. during the pendency of this petition and his son Namdeo is brought on record as petitioner. Respondent Nos. 5 to 11 were also added to the petition as other heirs of Maruti. It appears from the record i. e. from Exhibit "a" that the original tenant had initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Act of 1948 before the Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Mahankal and the case was decided in his favour and purchase price was fixed. Thereafter, this order was challenged by one of the heirs Laxman. The matter was thereafter remanded. However, again order was passed in favour of the tenant under section 32-G. This order was then challenged by Ramchandra. Ultimately, it appears from record that the Sub Divisional Officer, Miraj, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar by his order dated 31-3-1978 for a detail enquiry and decision on the following points: 1) The clear title of the suit land of the applicant should be enquired (the applicant at that time being Ramchandra); (2) The point of giving notice under section 32-F of the Act to the Landlord and A. L. T. should be enquired as per provisions under section 32-F of the B. T. and A. L. T. Act. When the matter came before the Tahsildar after this order of the remand by SDO on the aforesaid two points, the Tahsildar gave a clear cut finding that Ramchandra Sutar was the sole owner and that the tenant Maruti Narayan Chavan has failed to give notice under section 32-F of the Act of 1948. The purchase of the land was therefore declared to be ineffective and the said land was ordered to be disposed off under section 32-P of the Act of 1948. Original tenant Maruti preferred an appeal before Sub Divisional Officer but the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Tahsildar was confirmed. Tenant Maruti therefore preferred revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal but the same also came to be dismissed and therefore original tenant filed this petition, which is now being persued by his son Namdeo.

(3.) THE crucial question that was raised by the Counsel for the petitioner is whether giving of notice under section 32-F was necessary for the tenant and whether on failure of giving such notice the tenant has lost right of purchase and whether the orders of the first Court i. e. Tahsildar, the Appellate Court i. e. S. D. O. and the Revisional Court i. e. M. R. T. which are all against the tenant are liable to be interfered with and set aside.