PANDURABG SAKHARAM Vs. MAHAARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
MAHAARASHTRA REVENUE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THE facts leading to the present petition are no more in dispute. The petitioner panduring is a protected lessee of the fields. Survey Nos. 28/2. 24/4 and 15/6 area 22 acres, of village sawargaon Dukre, situate in District Buldana. The respondent No. 4 Yadaosao is the landholder of the said land. The present proceedings came to be initiated by respondent No. 4 under the provisions of section 36 (2) read with section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958. here in after called the Act, for possessiion of the land from his tenant Pandurang.
(2.) THE respondent No. 4 acquired right to these fields by a registered deed of partition which is evidenced by a document of December 17. 1958. The tenancy of pandurang is protected and dates back to a period prior to the date of partition, i. e. , December 17. 1958. These being the facts the respondent No. 4 who is the tenure-holder having acquired by partition this land after 1st day of August 1953 and the protected lease in favour of the petitioner pandurang being prior to the date of the said partition. had no locus standi to make an application in view of the bar of sub-section (7) of section 38 of the Act. no Court therefore under the Act could proceed to grant relief to him.
(3.) HOWEVER, the litigation between the parties is pending for it had its own chequered course. Initially by and order dated October 22. 1963. the Naib Tahsildar held that the respondent No. 4 was entitled for possession of the suit land as per provisions of section 38 (4) (a ). Proviso, of the Act. In the appeal which was disposed of on April 13, 1964. the Deputy Collector with tenancy appleate powers affirmed that finding directing that respondent No. 4 Yadaorao. should be placed in possession of half the suit land under sectiion 38 of the Act. The matter was taken by the tenant to Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and by an order dated February 23, 1965. that Tribunal held that the application itself was not tenable in view of the provisions of section 38 (7) of the Act and adjidged that the application was untenable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.