SHRIKANT PUNDLIKRAO GANORKAR Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR ACHALPUR TAHSIL ACHALPUR DISTRICT AMRAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition by the landlord arises out of an application purported to have been filed under Section 36 (2) read with Ss. 43 (14-A) and S. 49-A (5) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act. This application came to be filed before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Achalpur. In this application the petitioner had alleged that he was the owner of Survey No. 3, area 35 acres 21 gunthas of Mouza Jamapatki, of taluq Achalpur, which was cultivated by respondent No. 2 Bankatsingh as a tenant. According to the petitioner, Bankatsingh had in his personal cultivation land more than three family holdings and the purchase of the land had thus become ineffective by the statutory provisions. He, therefore, prayed that the land in the possession of the tenant should be put in his possession. The tenant filed a reply admitting that besides field S. N. 3, he had his own cultivation to the extent of three family holdings. The Naib Tahsildar treated the application as one under Section 21 of the Tenancy Act and passed an order purporting to be one under Section 36 (3) of the Tenancy Act that the landlord should be put in possession of the whole field.

(2.) THE Assistant Collector, Achalpur, exercised his revisional jurisdiction suo motu and came to the conclusion that the application which was filed on 26-12-1967 was barred having regard to the provisions of Section 36 (2) of the Tenancy Act as it was not made within two years from 1-4-1963 which was the date for statutory transfer of ownership under Section 49-A of the Tenancy Act. He also held that since in respect of the holding of the tenant proceedings under the Ceiling Act were already pending, the Naib Tahsildar should have stayed the proceedings before him. He, therefore, set aisde the order of the Naib Tahsildar. A revision application filed against this order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was rejected. The Tribunal took the view that the proper authority to deal with the question, whether the land was deemed to have been surrendered under Section 49-A (5) of the Tenancy Act, was the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and the Naib Tahsildar had no jurisdiction in entertaining an application under Section 36. An additional finding which the Tribunal gave was that assuming that the Naib Tahsildar had jurisdiction, the application was patently barred by limitation. The revision application thus came to be dismissed. These orders are challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the application was in substance an application for enforcing the right which had accrued to the landlord by virtue of the statutory surrender which had come into effect by virtue of Section 49-A (5) of the Tenancy Act. But, according to him, since such a surrender as contemplated by Section 49-A (5) was to be treated as if it was a surrender under Section 20 and the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of S. 21 applied to such a statutory surrender also, the jurisdictions 20 and 21 of the Tenancy Act being with the Tahsildar, the application was rightly made to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to pass an order for possession.