PETITIONER: PAMCHANDRA HASHA DALVI (DECEASED) THROUTH LRS. Vs. RESPONDENT: D.PATWARDHAN (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/10/1998 BENCH: G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
Nanavati.J.
This appeal is filed by the tenant against the
judgment and or der dated 3.8.1990 passed by the High Court
of Bombaly in Writ Petition No. 95 of 1980.
The Agricultural Lands Tribunal, The deputy District
Collector in appeal and the Revenue Tribunal in revision
have held that the tenant had made a statement on 13.1.1965
stating that he was not willing to purchase the land and,
therefore, the purchase under Section 32 of the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act had become ineffective.
After the purchase was declared ineffective, the tenant made
an application declaring that he wants to purchase the land.
That application was dismissed by the Agricultural Lands
Tribunal as not maintainable. Another application was moved
by the tenant on 12.1.1967. That was also dismissed on
13.3.1967 for the same reason. Again an application was
made by the tenant on 15.2.1968 stating therein that the
statement dated 13.1.1965 was not voluntarily made by him
and in any case it was not conclusive as it was not made on
oath. He also alleged that no notice regarding statutory
purchase of the land was received by him. This application
was rejected by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on the
ground that at that stage evidence could be led only with
respect to the proceeding under Section 32-P of the Act and
no evidence could be led to question the order passed in the
32-G proceedings. The Tribunal than held that the statutory
sale in favour of the tenant having become ineffective the
landlord was entitled to be put in possession of the land.
This decision of the Tribunal was upheld in appeal
and also in the revision application.
As all the authorities have, after appreciating the
material on record, come to the conclusion that the sale had
become ineffective and the landlord was entitled to
possession of the land under Section 32-P of the Act, the
High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition. This
appeal is, therefore, dismissed.