JAGPALSINGH SAJJANSINGH Vs. DIGAMBER TULSIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the landholder, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution, challenging an order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal holding that his revision application against the order of the Special Deputy Collector in appeal, which order in its turn reversed the order of the Naib Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner, was barred by "limitation and therefore rejected.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be landholder of field survey No. 18/2, area 24 acres 30 gunthas of Koltek, tahsil Amravati. He filed an application on 27-3-1961 for possession of land having previously given a notice under Section 38 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958. The petitioner wanted the land for personal cultivation. The respondent Tulsiram who was originally impleaded as the respondent died on 17-10-1961 and in his place the present respondents, Digambar and Ambadas sons of Tulsiram and Deokabai wife of Tulsiram, were brought on record at their instance. The respondents resisted the application on several grounds, one of the grounds being that the petitioner had claimed the right to terminate the lease of the field on the ground that the field had been allotted to him in a family partition on 26-6-1959. The Naib Tahsildar, on a consideration of the material before him, held that the petitioner was entitled to possession of one-alf area of land from survey No. 18/2. The application to that extent was therefore allowed.

(3.) AGAINST this order which was passed on 9-9-1963, the respondents preferred an appeal. It seems to have been argued before the appellate authority that the claim of the petitioner was hit by the provisions of Section 38 (7) of the new Tenancy Act and the application was therefore not tenable. The appellate authority, in a short order, disposed of the appeal on its view of the effect of Sub-section (7) of Section 38 of the new Tenancy Act. It was held that inasmuch as the petitioner had acquired the field as a result of the partition dated 26-6-1959, he had no right to terminate the tenancy of the respondents. The order of the Naib Tahsildar was set aside and the application of the petitioner was dismissed. This order was passed on 30-6-1964.