MOHANLAL CHANDANMAL SURANA Vs. MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL
LAWS(BOM)-1962-1-11
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on January 16,1962

Mohanlal Chandanmal Surana Appellant
VERSUS
MAHARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

BAPU SITARAM ADSULE VS. APPA MHADGONDA PATIL [LAWS(BOM)-1973-7-34] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

KOTVAL,J. - (1.)This special civil application arises out of an order dated November 20, 1960, passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Nagpur. By that; order the Tribunal purported to dispose of two revision applications, Nos. 49 and 51/TEN of 1960 pending before them. Those two revision applications .arose out of two revenue cases, Nos. 6 and 93/59(9) of 1959 -60. Revenue Case No. 6 of 1959 -60 arose upon a reference made under Section 125 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region and Kuteh Area) Act, 1958 (No. XCIX of 1958) by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur, in a civil suit pending before him. In that suit the right to field No. 7/1 of mouza Region in taluq Kelapur was in question.
(2.)THE field originally belonged to the petitioner Mohanlal and lie had leased it out to respondent No. 4 Rajeshwar in the agricultural year 1951 -52. Then by virtue of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural. Leases Act, 1951, Rajeshwar remained in possession and cultivated the field till the year 1957 -58. By this date, it is not in dispute, Rajeshwar had under his cultivation a total area of more than 50 acres and, therefore, under Section 4(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act, he had to select out of the land in his possession 'so much area as would make the total area to be held by him as a protected lessee equal to 50 acres'. By virtue of that section he was to make this selection two months prior to the commencement of the next agricultural year, that is to say, by February 1, 1957 (the agricultural year commencing on April 1, 1957). Rajeshwar, however, made no such selection and, therefore, it is not in dispute, he lost his protected status.
On May 25, 1957, he executed two documents in respect of the field in dispute, namely, field No. 7/1. The first was a surrender deed and the other was a 'batai pat/ret. By virtue of this batai pat ret he continued in possession of the field. While this was the position between the parties as to the disputed field No. 7/1, there came into force on December 30, 1958, the Bombay Act No. XCIX of 1958.

(3.)BEFORE we proceed to consider the points arising in the petition, it is necessary to state the further history of the litigation between the parties. In the year 1957 -58 there were three proceedings commenced by the respondent Rajeshwar against the petitioner and one Ramchandra. These proceedings were under Section 4(2) of the Berar Regulation of Agricultural Leases Act and Sections .1.0 and 11 thereof for determination and commutation of reasonable lease -money of survey Nos. 7/1 and 33. Those proceedings went through the various stages of appeal and ultimately on July 15, 1959, the proceedings were finally adjudicated by the revenue authorities by order of the Bombay Revenue Tribunal in Revenue Appeal No. 2/51 -B of 1959. The Tribunal confirmed the dismissal of all the three applications of the respondent Rajeshwar. Thereafter the suit came to be filed and the reference as stated above was made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kelapur.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.