Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This Petition challenges an order dated 19 th April, 2014 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "the MRT") whereby Revenue Application No. TNC/REV/SS/46/B/2002 S.R.JOSHI 2 of 16 10-wp-10629-2014.doc as filed by Respondent No.1 has been allowed. By virtue of the impugned order, the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj, Sub- Division, District Sangli, in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 2001 dated 5 th March, 2002 and the orders of the Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No. Nigdi Bk-32G/227/2001 dated 29th September, 2001, are set aside, with a further order, that the case be remanded to the Tahsildar & A.L.T. Jat District Sangli, for a fresh enquiry and a decision thereon be taken in accordance with law, in the light of the observations as made in the impugned order.

2 The dispute between the parties has a chequred history. Respondent No.1 who was the applicant before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in the Revision proceedings, is a Co-operative Society, formed with an object of joint cultivation inter alia, of sugarcane, fruits or flowers, etc. The Appellants who are the opponents in the said revision, are the owners of the suit land.

3 Respondent No.1 had taken the suit lands on lease from the Petitioner under a registered lease deed dated 2 nd December, 1950 and 5th December, 1950 for a period of 50 years. These leases expired in the year 2000. The case of Respondent No.1 and much prior to the expiry of S.R.JOSHI 3 of 16 10-wp-10629-2014.doc the leases was to the effect that it was entitled to purchase of the lands in question as Respondent No.1 had become a deemed tenant under the provisions of Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the BT & AL Act"). In making such claim, Respondent No.1 contended that the bar under Section 43-A of the BT & AL Act is not applicable to Respondent No.1, as an exemption was granted to Respondent No.1 from the applicability of the provisions of Section 43A of the BT & AL Act by virtue of a Certificate of Exemption, issued in its favour by the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sangli. 4 Respondent No.1 asserted that in the year 1968, Respondent No.1-Society had made an application under Section 32-G of the Act to the A.L.T. Jat, District Sangli for fixing the purchase price of the land in question. It appears that such application of Respondent No.1 was dismissed on the ground that Respondent No.1, had not produced an exemption certificate, as contemplated under Section 43A of the said Act. Assailing the decision on the said application, Respondent No.1-Society preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sangli being Tenancy Appeal Nos. 1/1968 and 2/1968. By an order dated 24 th May, 1969, the Collector dismissed the said Appeal for want of a Tenancy Certificate, granting exemption to Respondent No.1 under the provisions of sub-section (2) of S.R.JOSHI 4 of 16 10-wp-10629-2014.doc Section 43A of the Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved by the said decision, Respondent No.1-Society preferred a Revision Application before the MRT. The Revision was adjudicated by the MRT by an order dated 15 th June, 1970 by which the MRT remanded the case to the Tahsildar -Jat, (District Sangli) for a further enquiry, on the claim of the Respondent No.1-Society, that it had obtained an exemption certificate, subsequent to the decision of the Collector dated 24th May, 1969. It appears that between the period 1970 till the year 2001, the proceedings were dormant. 5 However, the record reveals that on remand, the Tahsildar, Jat, District Sangli, initiated an inquiry under Tenancy Case No. Nigdi Bk- 32G/227/2001 and passed an order dated 29 th September, 2001, inter alia holding that the provisions of Section 32G of the said Act were not applicable to the land in question in view of the applicability of Section 43A. Against the said order, Respondent No.1-Society preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 2001 before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Miraj. The Tenancy Appeal came to be adjudicated by an order dated 5 th March, 2002, whereby Respondent No.1's appeal came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order dated 29th September, 2001 passed by the Tahsildar. It is against the such order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, the Revision in question came to be filed by the Respondent No.1-Society S.R.JOSHI 5 of 16 10-wp-10629-2014.doc before the MRT which has been allowed by the impugned order. 6 As seen from facts as noted above, the controversy as involved in the present proceedings is as to whether Respondent No.1- Society was at all exempted from the applicability of Section 43A(1) of the said Act, inasmuch as Respondent No.1 claimed to have an exemption from the applicability of the said provision, by virtue of an exemption certificate as issued in its favour. The MRT, proceeded in allowing Respondent No.1's Revision Application accepting, Respondent No.1's case that Respondent No.1 had obtained necessary Certificate of Exemption, immediately after the Collector passed an order on 12 th December, 1969, as noted above. The relevant observations in that regard, reads as under:-

" It is seen that the revision applicant society could not become deemed purchaser u/s. 32G of the Tenancy Act because they could not produce the necessary certificate issued by the competent authority specifying that provision of 32 to 32R were attracted as provided in section 43A (2) of the Tenancy Act.
The claim of the society u/s 32G was rejected by A.L.T and Collector, Sangli only because they failed to produce the said certificate. It is seen that the society obtained the necessary certificate on 12/12/1969 i.e. immediately after order of Collector dt. 24/5/1969. This certificate was available when the dispute was taken up with MRT, Kolhapur. MRT Kolhapur remanded the cases to ALT Jat for fresh enquiry and decision in the light of the certificate issued by District Deputy Registrar on 12/12/1969.

11 In pursuance of such directions of this Court, the learned AGP has placed on record affidavit of Shri Mangesh B. Surwase, District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sangli who has stated that, the District Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction under the BT & AL Act along with Rules made thereunder to issue any exemption certificate under Section 43A(2) of the said Act. It is stated that only the designated Authority has jurisdiction under the said Act to issue such exemption after an adequate enquiry being made as per the provisions of section 43A(2) of the BT & AL act, in consultation of the District Deputy Registrar Co- operative Societies, Sangli. It is stated that, however, the opinion of the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, is not a final decision on S.R.JOSHI 9 of 16 10-wp-10629-2014.doc any exemption, to be granted under Section 43A(2) of the BT & AL Act as the final decision is of the State Government as provided under Section 43A(2). In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, it is stated that there is no record of any exemption being issued as claimed by Respondent No.1 and that the official Respondents also cannot produce any such certificate or its copy.