BUDHAJI LAXMAN NARVEKAR Vs. KRISHNA SHIVRAM PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India order of remand of the case passed on 14th July, 1982 by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) is challenged. The matter is remanded to the Tahsildar, Rajapur for fresh hearing and decision according to law and in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal in its judgment. On remand both the parties are directed to be given full opportunity to lead evidence as they desire.

(2.) IN order to understand the point involved in this petition, it is necessary to advert to some facts. The suit properties are bearing Survey No.229, Hissa No.4 admeasuring 6 acres and 4 gunthas plus 2 gunthas and Survey No.229, Hissa No.8 admeasuring 1 acre and 20 gunthas plus 3 gunthas situate at village Bhalavali, Taluka Rajapur, District Ratnagiri. Both the lands are workers lands. These lands belonged to one Dhondu Mahadeo Sinkar. This Dhondu mortgaged these lands with other lands to one Dinkar Vishnu Tendulkar on 27.3.1895. Thereafter, in 1919 Dhondu's son Ramchandra sold equity of redemption in respect of some of the lands to Gopal Kashi Patkar. This transaction was made by registered sale deed dated 5th February 1919. Gopal Patkar, in turn, sold his right, title and interest to Laxman Narayan Narvekar, Bhivaji Narayan Narvekar and Gopal Narvekar by a sale deed dated 30th June, 1926 for consideration of Rs.1,400/-. A term was stipulated in this sale deed that if the vendor obtained possession from the mortgagee the same would be handed over to the vendee on payment of Rs.1,200/-.

(3.) IT appears that respondents No.1 to 5 filed Regular Civil Suit No.7 of 1974 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division Rajapur and therein made out a case that their father by name, Shivram Ram Patil, was the tenant of the suit lands since before 1957 and being in possession thereof on 1.4.1957 have become purchaser thereof. It is not clear from the papers of this petition as to what reliefs were claimed in that suit. However, one issue was framed in that suit as to whether Shivram was the tenant of the suit lands on 1.4.1957 and, therefore, they have become tenant purchasers of the suit lands. That issue came to be referred to the Tahsildar, Rajapur for his finding and decision as required by S.85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act). That reference was numbered as Tenancy Case No.2 of 1976. The Tahsildar, Rajapur by his judgment and order dated 13th June 1980 recorded a finding in favour of respondents-plaintiffs that Shivram was the tenant on 1.4.1957 and, as such, the respondents-plaintiffs have become tenant purchasers of the suit lands. That decision of Tahsildar, Rajapur was challenged in Tenancy Appeal No.15 of 1980.