Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. All these three writ petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment, as they are between the same parties in relation to the agricultural land bearing Survey Nos. 230/3-B(part) and 230/4-A/2, which has been subsequently farmed into Gut No. 1294, situated at village Pandare, taluka Baramati, district Pune. Petitioner Krishna alias Kisan Rajaram Karve and others are the landlords in respect of the suit land. It is not in dispute that Dinkar Anaji Kumbhar was inducted in the suit land as tenant. It is also not in dispute that the landlords issued notice for possession of the suit land under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for personal cultivation on 25th August 1956. Thereafter, the landlords instituted proceedings for possession of the suit lands an that ground, which proceedings culminated with the order of possession of half portion of the suit lands to be handed over to the landlords. That order was passed on 3rd March 1959. Pursuant to the said order, the landlords have been put in possession of the half portion of the suit lands. That land is not subject matter of the present proceedings. However, insofar as the remaining half portion of the suit lands is concerned, the landlords subsequently filed application for issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Act on 30th November 1959. We are not concerned even with the said proceedings. What is relevant for our purpose is that the tenant himself moved an application before the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, which was numbered as Proceedings No. 1 of 1959 stating therein that he was not interested in cultivating the suit lands any further and that he was in occupation of other lands owned by him, which were sufficient to cater to his requirements. In other words, the application came to be filed by the tenant that he may be permitted to deliver possession of the suit lands to the landlords. That application was considered by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon and after giving sufficient opportunity to the tenant, eventually, the same was allowed and the tenant was permitted to surrender the lands to the landlords by order dated 30th October 1959. The order clearly records that matter was also postponed on 3 occasions and the tenant was made fully aware of the consequences of his stand that he would like to hand over possession of the suit lands to the landlords and inspite of that, the tenant volunteered and stood by his application. Indeed, after the tillers' day, i.e., 1st April 1957, the question of surrender of lands by the tenant did not arise, because, on that day, by operation of law, the tenant became deemed purchaser and that the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came to an end. However, the stand taken by the tenant, such as in the present case, was surely one covered by Section 32G of the Act, which obligates the Tribunal to record as statement of tenant whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him as tenant. Before we refer to the other facts, it will be apposite to advert to the scheme of the Tenancy Act. Section 32 of the Act provides that on the tillers' day, the tenant is deemed to have purchased. the land under cultivation, but that arrangement is subject to the other provisions of the Act, as is provided for in Sub-section (1) of Section 32. Section 32G thereafter obligates the tenant to exercise the right to purchase the suit land. In cases where the tenant declines the option of purchase, it would necessarily fallow that the statutory purchase has become ineffective and procedure for resumption of land under Section 32P of the Act is required to be initiated in such cases. In other words, it is not as if on 1st April 1937, the tenant becomes full and absolute owner of the land, but his right is subject to complying with other requirements of the Act including Section 32G, expressing willingness to purchase the suit land. Whereas, in the present case, it is seen that the tenant filed application before the Tenancy Awal Karkoon on 29th September 1959 mentioning in clear terms that he was not interested in having the land or continuing to cultivate the same. The order passed by the tenancy authority on 30th October 1959 also records the fact that the tenant was clearly told that his stand would disentitle him from purchasing the suit lands and inspite of that, the tenant stood by his stand that he may be permitted to hand over the suit lands to the landlords. Pursuant to the said order passed by the Tenancy authority on the application filed by the tenant, the revenue record indicates that, the landlords were put in possession of the suit lands on 4th December 1959 and they have continued to remain in possession thereof since then. It is, however, after lapse of more than 23 years, the tenant chose to file appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the tenancy authority on his own application for permitting him to hand over the suit lands to the landlords. The appeal is filed on the assertion that the tenant is still in occupation of the suit land and that the earlier arrangement worked out between the parties was due to misrepresentation of the tenant. Besides filing the appeal questioning the decision of the tenancy authority dated 30th October 1959, the tenant also simultaneously filed application under Section 37 read with Section 39 of the Act for restoration of the suit lands to him on the assertion that he has been forcibly dispossessed from the suit land some time in the year 1982. In the said application, the tenant also prayed for relief of compensation for the loss suffered due to such forcible dispossession. The appeal filed by the tenant was numbered as Appeal No. 30 of 1982 filed before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati, whereas the application under Section 37 read with Section 39 of the Act was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1982 before the Tahsildar, Baramati. The application filed by the tenant being Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1982 was decided by the Tahsildar, Baramati, by a judgment and order dated March 3, 1983. The Tahsildar found that the application preferred by the landlords for issuance of exemption certificate under Section 88C of the Act was misconceived, because the same was filed after the tillers' day. It is noted that in the present case, the tillers' day would be 3rd March 1959, on which date the application of the landlords under Section 31 of the Act for possession of the suit lands on the ground of personal cultivation came to be disposed of, whereas the application under Section 88C of the Act was filed in October 1859. The Tahsildar further found that since the landlords had invoked the provisions of Section 31 of the Act for obtaining possession of the suit lands on the ground of personal requirement, there was no question of tenant surrendering the suit lands after the tillers day. On this reasoning, the Tahsildar allowed the application preferred by the tenant for restoration of the suit lands and also directed the landlords to pay compensation quantified at Rs 3,000/- to the tenant. It is not in dispute that the Tahsildar has not addressed himself to the factum of the date of dispossession of the tenant from the suit lands. Against the decision passed by the Tahsildar directing restoration of suit lands to the tenant, the landlords preferred appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer being Tenancy Appeal No. 32 of 1983. That appeal was allowed by the appellate authority on July 3, 1983. The appellate authority found that the application filed by the tenant for restoration of suit lands under Section 37 read with Section 39 of the Act was misconceived and was not tenable in law. Accordingly, the appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the order of restoration of suit lands passed by the Tahsildar. Against this decisions the tenant carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being Revision No. MRT.P.VII-12/83 (TNC-B-198/83) Pune. While this revision application was pending, the Sub-Divisional Officer decided the appeal preferred by the tenant questioning the correctness of decision of the Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 30th October 1959 by judgment and order dated 28th July 1983. The appeal preferred by the tenant came to be dismissed on the reasoning that the tenant was fully aware about the decision passed on 30th October 1959 and there was no sufficient cause for entertaining the appeal after the lapse of 23 years. The appellate authority also recorded a finding on merits that there is no infirmity in the decision passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 30th October 1959, because that order was passed after giving sufficient opportunity to the tenant and the same came to be passed only after the tenant volunteered to hand over the suit lands to the landlords. Against the decision passed by the appellate authority in Tenancy Appeal No. 30 of 1982, the tenant preferred revision application before the M.R.T. being Revision No. MRT.P.IX.7/1983(TNC-B-253/1983). It is relevant to note that after the decision of the Tahsildar dated 15th March, 1983, directing restoration of the lands to the tenant, the tenant had filed appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer being Appeal No. 38 of 1983 for enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tahsildar quantified at Rs. 3,000/-. That appeal came to be dismissed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 28th July 1983 on the reasoning that the appeal preferred by the landlords has been allowed. Naturally, the tenant carried this decision in revision before the M.R.T. by way of Revision No. MRT.P.IX.8/1983 (TNC.B-254/1983). Since all the three revision applications were pending before the M.R.T., the Tribunal proceeded to decide the same by common judgment and order dated February 16, 1985. It has affirmed the view taken by the appellate authority that the application as filed by the tenant under Section 37 read with Section 39 of the Act was not maintainable. It has also affirmed the finding recorded by the lower authority that the surrender of the suit lands by the tenant was voluntary. The Tribunal also affirmed the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below that no documentary evidence was adduced by the tenant, except his oral evidence to support his stand that he was giving half crop share to the landlords till the alleged dispossession on 23rd April 1982, whereas the 7 x 12 extracts and other contemporaneous record would indicate that from 1959-60 onwards, the possession of the suit lands is recorded of landlords as 'Khud'. In other words, the Tribunal has answered all the material issues in favour of the landlords, but then proceeded to hold that the surrender was illegal and void on the ground that the landlords had already obtained possession of half portion of the suit lands under Section 31 of the Act by order dated 3rd March 1959. The Tribunal has, however, not even adverted to the grievance made on behalf of the landlords that the appeal filed by the tenant questioning the decision of the Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 30th October 1959 after lapse of 23 years was barred by limitation. Be that as it may, as mentioned earlier, although the Tribunal has answered the material issues in favour of the landlords, proceeded to grant relief to the tenant by holding that the order of surrender passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon, Baramati, dated 30th October 1959 was illegal and void and the same will have no effect. On that reasoning, it proceeded to pass the following order:

The Revision ApplicationNo.MRT-P-VII-122/1983 is dismissed. The order of Sub Divisional Officer Baramati in Tenancy Appeal No. 32 of 1983 is confirmed and the order of Tahsildar, Baramati in Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1982 is set aside. Similar order as above will have to be passed in Revision Application No. MRT-P-IX-8/19S3. The revision application is dismissed. The order passed in Tenancy Appeal No. 38 of 1983 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Baramati on 28-7-1983 is upheld. The order passed by the Tahsildar, Baramati in, Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1982 on 15-3-1983 in respect of compensation is set aside.