BABU GANGARAM CHOUDHARI Vs. M R DESHPANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution takes exception to the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 23-2-1987 in Revision No. MRT-P. XII-4-1984 (TNC-B-289/84), Pune.

(2.) THE petitioners are the landlords in respect of survey Nos. 142/2-A and 142/2-B, now renumbered as Gat No. 868/4 at Naigaon, Taluka Haveli, District Pune. This matter involves chequered history. Suffice it to mention that the respondents are claiming through their predecessor-in-title Sopana Choudhari. The tenancy authority initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for declaring Shankar Rambhau Sopana as the tenant in respect of the suit lands. Before the Tenancy Authority, the respondents disputed the title of the petitioners as landlords. To dispel that contention the petitioners placed reliance on the order passed by the Civil Court declaring Babu Gangaram Chaudhari, predecessor of the present petitioners, as owner of the suit land. In the said proceedings, the authority proceeded to examine the claim of the respondents and held that Shankar Rambhau Chaudhari was the joint manager of the family of the original tenant. The Additional Mamlatdar and A. L. T. , Haveli by order dated 16th June, 1965, although decided the issue of tenancy and that the respondents having become deemed purchaser, however, observed that the respondents would be entitled to put the purchase only 2 acres and 15. ? gunthas out of the suit land since their holding, at the relevant time was 45 acres and 24. ? gunthas. Against this decision the matter was taken in appeal by both the parties. Both the appeals were allowed on 22-11-1967 and the matters were remanded to the trial Court to find out the exact holding of the tenant. Against this decision the petitioners preferred revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the said revision application and was pleased to set aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the same was passed without affording hearing to the parties. The revision was, accordingly, allowed on 7-8-1969 and the matter stood restored to the file of the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority, after hearing both the sides, by order dated 30-3-1971, once again remanded the matter to the first authority for recalculating the holding of the tenant for the reasons recorded in the said order. Against this decision the petitioners carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal by order dated 10-11-1971 was pleased to affirm the view taken by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, the remand proceedings proceeded before the Tahsildar, Haveli in which the said authority by its order dated 24-1-1974 took the view that the tenants holding was 63 acres and 38. 1/2 gunthas and as such he was not entitled to purchase any portion from the suit land as his holding exceeded the ceiling limits. The Tahsildar, accordingly, declared the purchase ineffective. Against this decision, the matter was carried in appeal by the respondents being Appeal No. 112/76. However, the said appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Pune by order dated 18-1-1977. Against this decision the respondents carried the matter in revision before the Tribunal which was, however, partly allowed on 12-12-1977 holding that the respondents were entitled to purchase only 4 acres and 22. 1/2 gunthas out of the suit lands and the matter was remanded to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fixing purchase price of the said area. This authority took the view that the respondents total holding was 43 acres and 17. ? gunthas.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further to the other relevant facts, I think it would be proper to advert to the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in this order as it will have direct bearing on the question that requires to be considered in this petition. The same reads thus : in the instant case it is found that the applicants hold as owner 43-17. ? Gs. only. The remaining land included in the holding is cultivated by them as tenants. As the area held by them as owner is not equal to or in excess of the ceiling area. The embargo provided by section 32-B will not apply. On the contrary, the applicants must be held to be entitled to purchase so much part of the land as will raise their holding to the extent of the ceiling area, by virtue of sub-section (2) of section 32-A which provides as follows :-