vss
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5930 OF 1991
Gangubai Ganpati Mendkudale
@ Birajdar since deceased
through her heir
Balwant ganpati Birajdar ... Petitioner
V/s.
Vanappa Shekappa Mang & Ors. ... Respondents
a/w
WRIT PETITION NO.5918 OF 1991
Gangubai Ganpati Mendkudale
@ Birajdar since deceased
through her heir
Balwant ganpati Birajdar ... Petitioner
V/s.
Vanappa Shekappa Mang & Ors. ... Respondents
Mr.K.B. Sonwalkar for Petitioner
Mr.Sagar Joshi for Respondent Nos.1 to 4
CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.
J
DATED: NOVEMBER 24, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT:
. These petitions have been filed challenging the
order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in
Revision application Nos.MRT-SH-VIII-6 (Tnc.B.179/88)
and MRT-SH-VIII-7/88 (Tnc.B.180/88). The petitioner in
both the petitions claims to be the landlord of
agricultural lands being Gat Nos.59/3 and 7/73. These
lands originally belonged to the mother of the
petitioner, Gangubai Menkudale. The lands were
cultivated by one Shekappa Malappa Mang prior to
1.4.1957. Proceedings under section 32G of Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:05:12 :::
: 2 :
Act) were initiated by the Tehsildar and ALT of
Mangalvedha on 30.9.1960. The original tenant according
to the petitioner showed his unwillingness to purchase
the suit lands which was recorded by the Tehsildar. In
the circumstances, it was ordered that the sale of the
suit lands under section 32G was ineffective because the
tenant was unwilling to purchase the suit lands.
2. About 14 years later, on 24.7.1974, the
Tehsildar passed an order u/s 32P of the Act and
directed that the suit land should be restored and
handed over to the petitioner. This order was set aside
on 10.8.1975 in Appeal No.TAP-113 of 1975. The matter
was remanded to the Tehsildar, Mangalvedha for a fresh
enquiry.
3. Prior to this in 1968, Gangubai had filed a
civil suit being RCS No.80 of 1968 before the Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Mangalvedha, District Solapur
for possession of the suit land. The respondents
contested the suit and contended that they were
cultivating the suit land as tenants and were therefore
deemed purchasers of the suit land. An issue was framed
by the Civil Court with respect to the tenancy of the
lands and the same was referred u/s 25A of the Act to
the Additional Tehsildar, Mangalvedha. The issue
referred was as follows:
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:05:12 :::
: 3 :
“Whether the respondents are tenants in the suit
land and whether they are entitled to purchase
the suit land u/s 32G of the Act.”
4. Notices were issued to the parties after
registering their case before the Tehsildar. The
Tehsildar by the order dated 17.8.1978 declared that the
respondents were tenants and held that the respondents
had proved that they were deemed purchasers of the suit
land and were entitled to purchase the lands u/s 32G of
the Act.
It appears that the Tehsildar in Tenancy Case
No.24-9 had also fixed the purchase price of the suit
land in the proceedings initiated u/s 32P. The
petitioner approached the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Pandharpur by preferring Appeal Nos.31 and 30 of 1981,
were filed challenging the orders passed by the
Tehsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the
appeals preferred by the petitioner on 29.1.1988. Being
aggrieved by this order of the SDO, the petitioner
preferred revision applications before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal, Pune. The Tribunal by its common
judgment upheld the view taken by the SDO and confirmed
his judgment. Hence, the present petitions.
4. The learned advocate for the petitioner has
contended that when there was a finding recorded by the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:05:12 :::
: 4 :
Tehsildar that a tenant was not willing to purchase the
suit land u/s 32G of the Act, the impugned orders could
not have been passed. He submits that by an order dated
30.9.1960. The Tehsildar had declared that the purchase
of the suit land u/s 32G had become ineffective. The
learned advocate submits that this declaration of
30.9.1960 has not been challenged by the respondent and,
therefore, the orders declaring the respondents to be
tenants and for fixing the purchase price are illegal.
5. A perusal of the order of the SDO indicates that
the tenant had
in fact shown his unwillingness to
purchase certain lands. However, these lands were not
survey Nos.77/3 and 59/3 which were owned by the
petitioner. Instead the declaration related to land
bearing survey No.62. This declaration made in respect
of survey Nos.62 and not of 77/3 and 59/3 has not been
challenged by the petitioner. Therefore, the
declaration is naturally limited to survey No.62 which
is not owned by the petitioner.
5. In these circumstances, there is no error in the
finding recorded by the Tribunal, confirming the order
of the SDO. In my opinion, when three authorities below
have recorded concurrent findings of fact that the order
declaring the purchase of the suit land being
ineffective on 30.9.1960 was in respect of survey No.62,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:05:12 :::
: 5 :
there is no need to interfere with this finding.
6. Petitions are dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:05:12 :::