Decided on March 08,1972



- (1.) THESE two petitioners raise a common question and can be disposed of by a common judgment. The petitioner is the owner of lands situated in Hadapsar, which are the subject-mater of the two petitioners. Survey Nos. 159/5 and 160/14 are the subject-matter of Special Civil Application No. 2140 of 1968. Survey Nos. 148a/3, 160/3 and 160/17 are the subject-matter of the second petition. The only question which arises under the said petitioners is whether the Revenue Tribunal was right in holding that the statutory title vested in the tenant of the said lands, respondent No. 1, under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was not divested by a notification issued by the Government which resulted in excluding the lands from the operation of Sections 32 to 32-R under Section 88-C (1) (b) of the said Act. The notification was admittedly issued after the vesting of the title in the respondent No. 1. The same was issued under the Provincial Municipal Corporation Act including the area in which the lands are situated into the area of the Municipal Corporation of the City of Poona.
(2.) THE proceedings from which the impugned order of the Tribunal dated June 28, 1968 arises were suo motu proceedings started by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Haveli under Section 32-G of the Act. By its order dated October 31, 1964, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that as a result of the notification including the area in which the lands were situated within the limits of the Poona Municipal Corporation, the respondent No. 1 could not claim any right under the Act in view of the provisions of Section 88-C (1) (b), as the government had reserved all lands falling within the limits of the Poona Municipal Corporation for non-agricultural and industrial development. On an appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 - tenant, the Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Poona set aside the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, following the decision of a Division Bench of this Court of Chainani, C. J. and V. S. Desai, J. in Spl. Civil Appln. No. 225 of 1959 D/- 8-10-1959 (Bom ). The petitioner filed a revision application against the said decision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its order dated June 28, 1968 dismissed the revision application with the following observations : ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . It is an admitted fact that the petitioner landlord had made an application to the Mamlatdar for the termination of tenancy of the opponent-tenants in respect of the suit lands and other lands under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Tenancy Act. It was Tenancy case No. 3/58. Against this order there was an appeal No. 195/58 decided on 31-7-1960. The said case came up before this Tribunal and this Tribunal by its order dated 16-3-1962, decided the revision application No. MRT. P. VIII, 8/60. Against this order of the Tribunal, the landlord had approached the Hon'ble High Court under Art, 227 of the Constitution of India and their Lordships were pleased to uphold the claim of the landlord in Special Civil Application No. 952/62, decided on 21-6-1963, except three pieces of land, admeasuring A. 1 Gs. 31 which were found to be within the Corporation limits of Poona. Their Lordships were pleased to grant 1/4 portion of the leased lands to the landlord under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, the position of law would be that the tenant had become a statutory purchaser of the suit lands on 21-6-1963 where the action of the landlord had reached finality. It must be stated that when the landlord had taken up the position that only A. 1 Gs. 31 of land was within the limits of Poona Corporation and the remaining lands were governed by the provisions of Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Tenancy Act and in fact it was accepted by the Hon'ble High Court, it cannot now lie in the mouth of the landlord to challenge the said verdict of higher judiciary. He would be estopped from agitating the same point which was concluded by the verdict of the High Court. . . . . . . . . "
(3.) THE Tribunal also found that the petitioner could not have any grievance because the petitioner had claimed that there was a partition of his family property and the lands which are the subject-matter of the present petitioners were allotted to his mother Laxmibai Kapare who died on July 29, 1963 and as the landlord had not exercised his right in resuming the land for personal cultivation within the prescribed period the tenant gave notices to the landlord and the Agricultural Lands Tribunal that he had become a statutory purchaser of the suit land under Section 32-F of the Act.;

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