Bombay High Court
L.J. Kriplani Since Deceased By His ... vs Manik Aditwar Patil & Others on 17 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(4)BOMCR366, 2000 A I H C 3631, (2000) 3 ALLMR 281 (BOM), 2000 BOM LR 3 66, (2000) 4 BOM CR 366
Author: A.M. Khanwilkar
Bench: A.M. Khanwilkar
ORDER
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.M
1. This petition has been filed by the landlord challenging the judgment of the ribunal dated 27-2-1986 in Revision Application No. 171 of 1984.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that their predecessor Shri L. J. Kriplani purchased the suit lands bearing S. Nos. 96/7, 96/12 and 96/4 situated at Majiwade, Taluka Thane sometime in the year 1950. Whereas the respondents are the successors in interest of one Shri Aditwar Patil who was in possession of the suit lands as tenant. The respondents initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for determining the purchase price in respect of the suit lands, being the deemed purchasers on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957. The said proceedings were initiated before the Addl. Tahsildar and A.L.T. Thane. The Tahsildar after considering the materials on record took the view that the respondents have failed to establish that they were tenants in respect of the suit lands on the tiller's day. In the circumstances the Tahsildar, by his order dated 6-1-1981, was pleased to drop the proceedings under section 32-G. Against the said decision the respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, being Tenancy Appeal No. 1 of 1982. The Appellate Authority after re-evaluation of the material on record and taking into account all the relevant mutation entries proceeded to hold that the said Aditwar and his wife Smt. Mathurabai were tenants in respect of the suit lands on the tiller's day and thus the respondents being the heirs of the said Shri Aditwar were entitled to be declared as tenants and deemed purchasers in respect of the suit lands. This order was taken exception to by the petitioners by filing revision application before the Tribunal at Bombay being Revision Application No. 171 of 1984. The Tribunal on re-examination of the materials on record affirmed the finding arrived at by the Appellate Court and was thus pleased to dismiss the revision application.
3. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal in this petition. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner mainly argued two points before this Court. According to him the tenant ought to have initiated 32-G proceedings within a reasonable time, though no limitation has been provided therefor. The second point which was pressed into service was that the Appellate Court and the Tribunal committed an error holding that the respondents were tenants merely on the basis of mutation entries, that too when the said entries have been certified without notice to the petitioner. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that the first point is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale v. Vithal Deo and others, . In so far as the second point is concerned it is contended on behalf of the respondents that whether the respondents were tenants or not is a pure question of fact and the same has been rightly concluded by the Appellate Court as well as the Tribunal, which conclusion does not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
4. Having considered the rival contentions I have no hesitation in accepting the submission on behalf of the respondents that merely because the respondents initiated proceedings in the year 1981 that would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner in any manner. The Ld. Counsel for the respondents is right in contending that having regard to the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttam Namdeo Mahale (supra), it is not open for the petitioners to contend to the contrary. On a bare reading of section 32-G of the Act, it makes it clear that the duty to initiate the said proceedings is primarily cast on the authorities. Therefore, merely because the tenant initiates the proceedings belatedly it cannot rob him of the right which is crystalised in his favour on the tiller's day of having become a deemed purchaser of the lands. The provisions under section 32-G are merely for determining the purchase price in respect of lands which have been deemed to have been purchased by the tenant on the tiller's day. I, therefore, rejected the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that because of delay in initiating the proceedings by the tenants, as late as in the year 1981, they have disentitled them of any relief.
5. Coming to the second point raised on behalf of the petitioner I am of the view that the two courts below have carefully considered the materials on record and rightly held that the predecessor of the respondents Shri Aditwar and his wife Mathurabai were in possession of the suit lands as tenants on the tiller's date i.e. 1-4-1957. Both the courts below have taken into account the mutation entries in respect of suit lands which would substantiate the said position. Besides the mutation entries, the courts below have also rightly drawn adverse inference against the petitioner for having failed to challenge the mutation entry within two months from the date of his knowledge when he learnt about the existence of the said mutation entry. In my view, there is no infirmity in the approach adopted by the two courts below. Merely because another view is possible that would not be a good ground for exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 to reverse the finding of facts recorded by the two courts below. In any case, the evidence on record would not warrant such an action. In the circumstances I affirm the finding of facts recorded by the two courts below. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
6. Petition dismissed.