- (1.) Heard Mr. Gole for the petitioners-tenants and Mrs. Mutalik for the respondent No.1 landlord.
(2.) This petition arises in the following circumstances, namely, proceedings under section 324 of The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "tenancy Act") were started by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Bhor (ALT) for determining the price of the land to be paid by the tenants. Both the parties were present before the ALT. The order passed by the ALT is filed along with the petition as Exhibit 'a'. That order is dated 8-10-1977. That order shows that ALT had in Tenancy Case No.23-A/77 of Chikhalgaon dated 6-6-1977 excluded the suit lands from the provisions of section 32g and consequently the purchase price was not fixed. ALT has observed that in the order dated 6-6-1977 it was mentioned that separate proceedings should be started in respect of the suit lands i. e. survey No.8/1 and 8/3. Therefore, ALT started separate proceedings as per Annexure 'a'. On the day of enquiry the power of attorney holder stated before the ALT that he has received order from Tahsildar in respect of the possession of the suit lands and therefore ALT dropped proceedings on 8-10-1977 under Section 32g of the Tenancy Act. The tenant feeling aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal before the Assistant Collector, Haveli Sub Division, Pune Vide No. TNC. Appeal 4/80. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to ALT for deciding three questions : 1)Was there a 32-G proceeding in the first place 2)If so, when the minor landlord attained majority, did he inform the tenant within one year as stipulated about his having attained majority 3)Did the landlord give the notice u/s 31 (3) and applied u/s 29 for possession within one year of his having attained majority If so when and how What was the result The landlord being aggrieved by this order preferred a revision before the MRT and the same was allowed and the order of the SDO in appeal was set aside and the order passed by the ALT dated 8-10-1977 was confirmed and hence the petitioner - tenant has filed this petition.
(3.) Before considering the submissions made by Mr. Gole and Mrs. Mutalik, it is necessary to narrate certain facts. The suit lands being survey No.8/1 and 8/3 of Chikhalgaon were originally owned by Dattatraya Lokhare - the father of the respondent No.1. Dattatraya effected the partition in 1957 and allotted the suit land to the respondent No.1 Jayant. At that time Jayant was minor and therefore tillers day was postponed under section 32f of the Tenancy Act. However, within three months of the coming into force of Tenancy Act, Jayant applied through his father guardian under section 88c of the Tenancy Act i. e. for exemption of his land. The necessary certificate after enquiry was granted in favour of Jayant and the tenant did not file any appeal against that order. It appears thereafter that in 1962 respondent No.1 - Jayant initiated proceedings under section 33b for termination of tenancy for personal cultivation and for possession of the land. This was done by him in 1962 before the Mamlatdar, Bhor, vide Tenancy Case No.318/62. The Mamlatdar, Bhor passed order partly allowing the application of respondent No.1 - Jayant in respect of survey No.8/3 and 8/1 only and allowed the petitioner to retain remaining survey No.8 (certified copy of this order in Tenancy Case No.318/62 was produced by the counsel for the respondent No.1 (marked Exhibit 'a' by me ). Mr. Gole objected to the production of the same on the ground that original record that was called by this court was not produced and the respondent No.1 cannot be permitted to file any documents at this stage. The objection was also raised by Mr. Gole in respect of a true copy of the order of the ALT and Additional Mamlatdar, Bhor dated 3-3-1970 (marked Exhibit 'b' by me ). I will deal with this objection at appropriate stage. It further appears from the record that in 1970, the ALT Bhor had initiated proceedings under section 32g of the Tenancy Act. Notices to both the landlord and tenant were issued, and they were present on the date fixed. Their statements were recorded and thereafter ALT, Bhor, passed the order on 3-3-1970 relying upon the statement of the landlord that he has received possession of the disputed land i. e. survey No.8/1 and 8/3 under section 33b of the Tenancy Act and that purchase price in respect of the other land being survey Nos. 42/1, 7/2, 8/5 and 7/3 being fixed by the ALT, nothing remained to be enquired into. He therefore dropped the proceedings and ordered that parties and Talathi should be informed by post of his order dated 3-3-1970, true copy of which was produced by the respondent as stated above.;