Dayaram Parshuram Patil v. Smt.Ramabai Mohan Machhi & Ors.

Mr.Sanjeev P. Kadam for petitioner Mr.Nitin V. Gangal for respondent No.1 Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent Nos. 2 to 4 CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st July 2011. P.C.: 1] By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges an order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 25th June 2010. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed the judgement of the Sub-Divisional Officer in Tenancy Appeal No.10 of 2002. 2] The petitioner claimed to be the owner of the land in question. He submits that his name continued to appear in the 2 7/12 extracts till 28th November 2001. It was deleted by mutation entry No.3752 and at that time respondent No.1’s name came to be recorded who is the purchaser. The name is recorded in such terms by virtue of the order dated 31st December 1980. The petitioner’s case was that from 1980 till 2001, all the while, the property was standing in the name of original land owner.

The original record was not available and that is how the Tahsildar gave report on 26th June 2002. If the original record was not traceable, then, presumption that is raised by section 114 of the Evidence Act 1872 should not have been raised. Consequently, the claim of the respondent as protected tenant cannot be accepted. Both the SDO and the Tribunal committed error apparent on the face of the record in arriving at a conclusion to the contrary and denying the petitioner landlord/ owner his rights in the property. 3] It is not possible to accept this contention. The Tribunal in para 5 of its order has observed that the record of the original case was not submitted by the Tahsildar. The 3 information also could not be supplied under the Right of Information Act. However, in the appeal filed, there was enough material. A certificate was issued by the Tahsildar Dahanu by which it was informed that purchase price was fixed in favour of Mankibai mother-in-law of present respondent.

Purchase price along with interest came to be deposited. The certificate came to be issued in respect of entries in the case register, ledger and all details are referred by the Tribunal. Copy of the challan was also produced. In these circumstances, the Tribunal committed no error in relying upon the record of the case as available in the office of the SDO which indicated that the predecessor of respondent’s family came to be recorded as protected tenant vide mutation entry no.731 which was recorded on 21st November 1948. This entry was certified on 25th March 1951. Ranchhod Machhi, whose name was recorded as protected tenant in 1948, left behind widow Kasturbai Machhi. Kasturbai Machhi was mother of Mankibai in whose favour order section 32-G was passed. In these circumstances, it is not as if Mankibai was a complete 4 stranger or unknown to the family of petitioner. The family history has also been referred to in great details in the Tribunal’s order.

In my view, the record being unavailable after 1980 till the time the petitioner instituted subject proceedings by itself and without anything more not enough to draw a presumption that 32-G proceedings were never initiated or concluded. There is enough indication in the available record that such proceedings were already initiated and concluded in accordance with law. Therefore, the claim of the respondent has been rightly accepted. The petitioner has been faulted for raising concluded matter and that too after 22 years and in my opinion rightly so. For all these reasons, this is not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction as there is no perversity or error apparent in the findings of SDO and Tribunal. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)