Supreme Court of India
Shantabai Vithal Patil (Dead) By Lrs. & ... vs Ambaji Laxman Thakur (Dead) By Lrs. & Anr on 14 October, 1998
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 1998 SC 9, 1998 (7) SCC 653, (1998) 6 SCALE 7, (1998) 3 SCJ 363, 1999 ALL CJ 146.1, (1999) 1 LAND LR 77, (1999) 1 BOM CR 564, (1999) 1 MAH LR 111, (1998) 7 JT 403, (1998) 8 SUPREME 260, (1999) 35 ALL LR 470, (1999) 1 ALL RENTCAS 438, (1999) 3 CIVLJ 590, 1999 UJ(SC) 88, (1998) 7 JT 403 (SC), 1998 ADSC 8 246, 1999 ALL CJ 1 146.1, 1999 BOM LR 1 234
Bench: G.T.Nanavati, S.P.Kurdukar
PETITIONER: SHANTABAI VITHAL PATIL (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: AMBAJI LAXMAN THAKUR (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR. 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 heirs of the landlady against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 3682 of 1981. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by them because the Tehsildar Alibag the Sub-Divisional Officer, Alibag and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding that the landlady after obtaining possession from the tenant under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 had ceased to cultivate the land personally within the period of 12 years and therefore the original tenant has become entitled to get back possession of the said land.
After going through the record. we also find that the said finding is not only supported by the material on record but is also correct. In the record of rights, in Form No. 12, it is clearly recorded that Pushoalate, married daughter of the landlady had cultivated the land in 1973 and 1974. That would mean that the landlady was not cultivating the land personally after obtaining possession of it from the tenant. The Tehsildar, therefore, was justified in allowing the application for possession filed by the tenant under Section 37 of the Act. The appeal, the revision and the writ petition were rightly dismissed> This appeal is dismissed with on order as to costs.