Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Ukha Hiralal Mali died on 5-8-1980 and the present petitioners who are the heirs of late Ukha Hiralal Mali filed Special Civil Suit No. 67/82 before the Civil Judge (S.D.) Dhule claiming the reliefs of possession of the suit land and the said suit was again dismissed by order dated 14-3-84 on the same ground namely the possession of -respondent No. 1 was protected under section 53-A of the Transfer o! Property Act and that the same relief prayed in earlier R.C.S. No. 96/71 was already rejected and the order was confirmed in appeal. While Special Civil Suit No. 67/82 was pending, the petitioners approached the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner and filed Tenancy Application No. 16/83 under section 84 of the Tenancy Act for summary eviction of the -respondent No. 1 and restoration of the subject land to them. The S.D.O. directed Tahsildar and Agricultural Land Tribunal, Amalner for recording the evidence and the Tahsildar after making necessary enquiry submitted his report. It was contended by the present petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer that the transfer of land to respondent No. 1 was invalid under section 43 of the Tenancy Act and hence, they were entitled for the restoration of land from the respondent No. 1. The Sub-Divisional Officer by his order dated 28-2-84 dismissed the tenancy application on the ground that the transaction between late Ukha Hiralal and the respondent No. 1 was merely an agreement of sale which was not a complete sale based on the sale-deed and hence, the possession of the respondent No. 1 was protected under section 53-A of the T.R Act. The S.D.O., for arriving at this conclusion, also relied upon the judgment in R.C.S. No. 96/71 as well as Civil Appeal No. 13/74 and held that the findings recorded by the Civil Court were binding on the Tenancy Court and that the transaction between Ukha Hiralal and the present respondent No. 1 was not invalid. The S.D.O. concluded that provisions of section 43 of the Tenancy Act did not come in the way of the respondent No. 1 as it was a case of incomplete sale-deed which was merely a contract of sale.

3. The petitioners filed Tenancy Revision Application No. 103/84, under section 76 of the Tenancy Act against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Application No. 16/83. By order dated 28-2-1985 the Revision was rejected and the findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer were confirmed. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal further held that decision in regular civil suit as well as appeal, as rendered by the Civil Courts regarding the claim of the petitioners for possession of the land had become final and the said operated as res-judicata and hence, the application under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was not tenable. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 28-2-1984 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Amalner and the order dated 28-2-85 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Bombay.

(2) No order of the Mamlatdar, the Tribunal, the Collector or the (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) or the (State) Government made under this Act shall be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court.

Explanation.--- For the purposes of this section a Civil Court shall include a Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906."

5. The only points for consideration in the instant petition are (1) whether the sale of the suit land by way of an agreement of sale in favour of respondent No. 1 executed on 16-3-61 was valid, (2) whether the transfer of the subject land by way of an agreement of sale between the petitioners' father and the respondent No. 1 was invalid as per section 43(2) of the Tenancy Act and (3) whether the application filed by the petitioners before the Sub-Divisional Officer under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was hit by res-judicata.

6. In the instant case the petitioners who are the heirs of the original tenant were not seeking re-possession of the subject land from the original landlord and instead they are seeking repossession of the suit land from a third person namely the respondent No. 1 who came in possession of the suit land by way of an agreement of sale signed some time in the year 1961 and registered. It is well established in law that the provisions of section 29(1) are attracted for claiming repossession of the suit land from the original landlord and the said provisions are not applicable when the repossession of the suit land is being sought from a third person. Section 43(1) of the Tenancy Act mandates that no land purchased by a tenant under section 32-F shall be transferred by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment without the previous sanction of the Collector and section 43(2) provides that any transfer of land in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 43 shall be invalid. It has been the case of the petitioners consistently that though, Ukha was a Karta of the Hindu family, the agreement of sale dated 16-3-61 was illegal inasmuch as though Ukha Miralal was a tenant of the suit land on the tillers day, he was not a owner of the suit land on 16-3-61 and he became owner of the suit land only on 11-6-71 when the certificate of ownership under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act was issued in his favour. The petitioners therefore, contended that the agreement of sale dated 16-3-61 was illegal and subsequent to the certificate of ownership being issued under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act on 11-6-71, transfer of land by way of sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease or assignment was prohibited and such transfer by sale could not have taken place unless it was with the previous sanction of the Collector. Admittedly no such sanction has ever been obtained by the respondent No. 1 or by Ukha Hiralal during his life time. The petitioners therefore, contended that the transfer by way of sale of the suit land in favour of respondent No. 1 was invalid under section 43(2) of the Tenancy Act and hence, the application for summary eviction under section 84 of the Tenancy Act was tenable and that the decisions rendered by two civil courts in the civil suits filed by Ukha as well as the present petitioners did not come in their way.