KARNU Vs. BALI SITARAM AWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition arising out of the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (for short the Tenancy Act). Briefly, the facts are that originally suo motu proceedings were started in respect of the filed S. No. 1/5 admeasuring 3 acres of village Vilapur under section 46(1) of the Tenancy Act for transfer of ownership of the said field in favour of the recorded tenants Antu Ragho and Sitaram Dhondu. Both the recorded tenants died during the pendency of the case. The respondent No. 1 is the legal representative of the deceased Sitaram and the respondents 2 to 4 are the legal representatives of the decreased Antu. One Bapurao was the original tenure holder of the suit field. The learned Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short the A.L.T.) after making necessary enquiry, by its order dated 15-7-1966, held that the respondents 1 to 4 were the statutory owners of the suit field under section 16(1) of the Tenancy Act. Accordingly, the purchase price of the suit filed was fixed by it. The respondents 1 to 4 paid the purchase price for the said field. The order of the learned A.L.T. was not challenged further in appeal or revision and had, therefore, become final.

(2.) It appears that the respondents 1 to 4 were not placed in possession of the suit field. Therefore, suo motu proceedings were again initiated for delivery of possession to them in the year 1969-70 under section 49-B of the Tenancy Act. These proceedings were, however, dropped by the learned A.L.T. by its order dated 31-7-1970 on the ground that the original tenure holder Bapurao was not in possession of the said field on 31-7-1969, as required by section 49-B of the said Act since in the meanwhile he had sold the land to the petitioner Karnu on 3-6-1969.

(3.) The Additional Tahsildar, Wani, on the basis of the report of the talathi reported to the Tahsildar on 17-4-1974 that the respondents 1 to 4 i.e. the tenants, were not in possession of the suit field which was in possession of the petitioner, who was not entitled to the possession of the same since the respondents 1 to 4 had become the statutory owners of the suit field prior to its purchase by the petitioner. The Tahsildar, being not himself a competent authority under section 120 of the Tenancy Act, submitted report to the Sub-Divisional Officer (for short the S.D.O.) requesting him to take suitable action under section 120 of the Tenancy Act against the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned S.D.O. issued notices to the parties concerned and by his order dated 9-9-1974, directed eviction of the petitioner from the suit field and restoration of the same to the respondents 1 to 4. The petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short the M.R.T.) but without success. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition in this Court.