Hari Appa Gade & Ors. v. Ramchandra Ganesh Petkar

Mr. Vinod Jadhav for the petitioner. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute for respondent nos. 1(d) and 4(A). Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : June 24, 2010. P. C. :

Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. The petitioners’ application under section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short, “the Act”] was rejected by the Tehsildar. The petitioners challenged the order of Tehsildar before learned Sub Divisional Officer by filing an appeal. Learned SDO allowed the petitioner’s appeal. The respondent, however, challenged the order of the SDO before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal [MRT] and MRT by the impugned order set aside the order passed by SDO and confirmed the order of Tehsildar.

Mr. Jadhav, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are cultivating the suit land belonging to the respondent in their capacity as tenants and therefore declaration as claimed ought to have been granted. He further submitted that the petitioners have given share in the -: 2 :- crop to the respondent and water tax in respect of irrigating the suit land is paid by the petitioners. He relied upon the receipts at Exhibit-18 under which the respondent accepted share in the crop and water tax receipts. He also relied on the statement of Mr. Abhang, whose name was entered into revenue record as tenant in the suit land, wherein the petitioners are stated to be cultivating the suit land.

Mr. Talkute, learned counsel for the respondent, on the contrary, supported the impugned order. He submitted that Mr. Phule and Mr. Abhang were the tenants in the suit property, however, in a proceeding under section 32-P of the Act, which were concluded in the year 1977, the possession of the suit property was delivered to the respondent in the year 1994. He further submitted that the petitioners as well as the respondent both filed suits for simplicitor injunction in respect of the suit property. The petitioners’ suit was dismissed by the trial Court. In this suit, a finding of fact was also recorded that the petitioners are not in possession of the suit property.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and having gone through the impugned order and relevant annexures, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. There is no dispute that the name of the petitioners does not appear in record of rights of the suit property. There is also no privity of contract between the petitioners and respondent. Names of Mr. Phule and Mr. Abhang were shown as tenants in record of rights of the suit property. There is also no dispute that -: 3 :- proceedings under section 32-P of the Act were initiated at the instance of the landlord against said Mr. Phule and Mr. Abhang prior to 1977 and these proceedings were concluded by delivering possession of the suit property to the respondent in the year 1994. The share crop receipts at Exhibit-18 disclose that the petitioners have given some share to the respondent. However, all these receipts are post 1984. In any case, these receipts have been disputed by the respondent and therefore same cannot be taken into consideration to prove petitioners’ tenancy in the suit property. The water tax receipts are also post 1984 and in any case the same will not prove the petitioners’ possession over the suit property in their capacity as tenants and therefore same cannot come to the rescue of the petitioners. The petitioners relied upon the statement of Mr. Abhang in which it is stated that the petitioners are in possession of the suit property. However, this statement, in my view, cannot be taken at its face value inasmuch as same is recorded after the conclusion of section 32-P proceedings in favour of the respondent landlord in which said Abhang lost possession of the suit property.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioners’ tenancy commences after the conclusion of section 32-P proceedings, no rights are created in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as admittedly the provisions contemplated under section 32-P of the Act are not complied with.

The Member of MRT has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and rightly passed the impugned order. Taking overall view of the -: 4 :- circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and same is accordingly dismissed.

(R.V. MORE, J.)