NAMDEO KESHAV GURAV Vs. NANA BHAU YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the petitioner in detail. The short question that involved in this case is that whether the land in question is a land cultivating sugarcane or not. The application for restoration of the land made by the landlord has been allowed by the original authority by order dated 26th February 1974 and the restoration of possession of the land was granted. Against this order, the respondents herein filed an appeal. The appellate authority set aside the order on the ground that on earlier occasion, the landlord succeeded in getting half of the land and, therefore, present application is impermissible. Against this order, the landlord filed revision. The revision has been dismissed confirming the order of the appellate authority.

(2.) THE petitioner contended that before the original authority that he has adduced evidence that the lease of the land is for sugarcane cultivation and, therefore, the orders passed by the authorities are illegal. Counsel for the respondents Mr. Suryavanshi has contended that he has produced a certified copy of the lease deed which goes to show that the lease is not for sugarcane cultivation. It is not clear whether the original authority has got the benefit of looking this document while appreciating the oral evidence and reaching its conclusion.

(3.) SINCE this controversy is not established beyond reasonable doubt, I think it is appropriate to send back the matter to the original authority for proper decision taking into account all the material available before the authority. Parties are at liberty to adduce evidence to support their contentions. For this purpose, I set aside the orders impugned in this case. The original authority Tahsildar, Panhala is directed to consider the matter afresh after allowing the parties to adduce evidence, both oral and documentary, and decide the matter according to law within one year from today.