Ramchandra Akkoba Hanchanale v. Dattatraya Vithal Pandit, since

The lands Karvir Tahsil of Kolhapur District. The lands Karvir Tahsil of Kolhapur District. The lands were owned by Smt. Ambabai Vithal Pandit, who were owned by Smt. Ambabai Vithal Pandit, who were owned by Smt. Ambabai Vithal Pandit, who was widow on the Tillers’ Day, i.e., 1-4-1957. was widow on the Tillers’ Day, i.e., 1-4-1957. was widow on the Tillers’ Day, i.e., 1-4-1957. She died on 10th February 1976. According to the She died on 10th February 1976. According to the She died on 10th February 1976. According to the Petitioners, the lands were under cultivation of Petitioners, the lands were under cultivation of Petitioners, the lands were under cultivation of their predecessor Akkoba Hanchanale since 1951 as their predecessor Akkoba Hanchanale since 1951 as their predecessor Akkoba Hanchanale since 1951 as tenant. The said Akkoba Hanchanale expired on tenant. The said Akkoba Hanchanale expired on tenant.

The said Akkoba Hanchanale expired on 3rd September 1973. It appears that proceedings 3rd September 1973. It appears that proceedings 3rd September 1973. It appears that proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (for short, "the Act") Agricultural Lands Act (for short, "the Act") Agricultural Lands Act (for short, "the Act") were commenced in respect of the suit land but were commenced in respect of the suit land but were commenced in respect of the suit land but came to be dropped as the landlady was widow came to be dropped as the landlady was widow came to be dropped as the landlady was widow being disabled landlord. It is the case of the being disabled landlord. It is the case of the being disabled landlord. It is the case of the :3: Petitioners that after the landlady expired, they Petitioners that after the landlady expired, they Petitioners that after the landlady expired, they gave notice on 11th February 1977 exercising gave notice on 11th February 1977 exercising gave notice on 11th February 1977 exercising right to purchase the suit lands in terms of right to purchase the suit lands in terms of right to purchase the suit lands in terms of section 32F of the Act.

On that basis, section 32F of the Act. On that basis, section 32F of the Act. On that basis, proceedings for determination of purchase price proceedings for determination of purchase price proceedings for determination of purchase price were commenced by the Petitioners. The Tahsildar were commenced by the Petitioners. The Tahsildar were commenced by the Petitioners. The Tahsildar allowed the application preferred by the allowed the application preferred by the allowed the application preferred by the Petitioners, which decision was carried in appeal Petitioners, which decision was carried in appeal Petitioners, which decision was carried in appeal by the landlady, which came to be dismissed. by the landlady, which came to be dismissed. by the landlady, which came to be dismissed. However, the revisional authority allowed the However, the revisional authority allowed the However, the revisional authority allowed the revision preferred by the landlady and remanded revision preferred by the landlady and remanded revision preferred by the landlady and remanded the matter to the first court to re-consider the the matter to the first court to re-consider the the matter to the first court to re-consider the case afresh.

After remand, the first court case afresh. After remand, the first court case afresh. After remand, the first court examined the materials on record and after examined the materials on record and after examined the materials on record and after appreciating the same found as of fact that there appreciating the same found as of fact that there appreciating the same found as of fact that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant was no relationship of landlord and tenant was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties whereas record would indicate between the parties whereas record would indicate between the parties whereas record would indicate that the land was being cultivated by the that the land was being cultivated by the that the land was being cultivated by the predecessor of the Petitioners in partnership predecessor of the Petitioners in partnership predecessor of the Petitioners in partnership with the landlady Ambabai Vithal Pandit.

In that with the landlady Ambabai Vithal Pandit. In that with the landlady Ambabai Vithal Pandit. In that view of the matter, the Court proceeded to reject view of the matter, the Court proceeded to reject view of the matter, the Court proceeded to reject the application for determination of the purchase the application for determination of the purchase the application for determination of the purchase price. That decision was carried in appeal by price. That decision was carried in appeal by price. That decision was carried in appeal by the Petitioners which was dismissed by judgment the Petitioners which was dismissed by judgment the Petitioners which was dismissed by judgment and order dated June 17, 1983, by the and order dated June 17, 1983, by the and order dated June 17, 1983, by the :4: Sub-Divisional Officer. The Petitioners then Sub-Divisional Officer. The Petitioners then Sub-Divisional Officer.

The Petitioners then carried the matter in revision before the carried the matter in revision before the carried the matter in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was also Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was also Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal which was also dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. In dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. In dismissed by the impugned judgment and order. In that sense, the present writ petition takes that sense, the present writ petition takes that sense, the present writ petition takes exception to concurrent decisions of three exception to concurrent decisions of three exception to concurrent decisions of three authorities below. authorities below. authorities below.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners below. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners below. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners further contends that the authorities have further contends that the authorities have further contends that the authorities have discarded Mutation Entry No. 1995 on the discarded Mutation Entry No. 1995 on the discarded Mutation Entry No. 1995 on the specious reasoning that the same is not proper specious reasoning that the same is not proper specious reasoning that the same is not proper and if that Mutation Entry was to be reckoned, it and if that Mutation Entry was to be reckoned, it and if that Mutation Entry was to be reckoned, it would necessarily follow that the Petitioners’ would necessarily follow that the Petitioners’ would necessarily follow that the Petitioners’ predecessor was cultivating the suit land as predecessor was cultivating the suit land as predecessor was cultivating the suit land as tenant.

It is thus contended that the tenant. It is thus contended that the tenant. It is thus contended that the authorities below have committed manifest error authorities below have committed manifest error authorities below have committed manifest error :5: in reaching at the conclusion, though in reaching at the conclusion, though in reaching at the conclusion, though concurrently. On the other hand, Counsel for the concurrently. On the other hand, Counsel for the concurrently. On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents submits that no interference is Respondents submits that no interference is Respondents submits that no interference is warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It warranted in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that the attempt of the Petitioners is submitted that the attempt of the Petitioners is submitted that the attempt of the Petitioners is to invite this Court to re-appreciate the is to invite this Court to re-appreciate the is to invite this Court to re-appreciate the evidence, which is not the scope of interference evidence, which is not the scope of interference evidence, which is not the scope of interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The Counsel for the Respondents Constitution. The Counsel for the Respondents Constitution. The Counsel for the Respondents has adopted the reasons and the conclusions which has adopted the reasons and the conclusions which has adopted the reasons and the conclusions which weighed with the three authorities below to weighed with the three authorities below to weighed with the three authorities below to contend that no fault can be found with the view contend that no fault can be found with the view contend that no fault can be found with the view as taken by the authorities below and that is a as taken by the authorities below and that is a as taken by the authorities below and that is a possible view. It is submitted that merely possible view. It is submitted that merely possible view. It is submitted that merely because another view may be possible, that cannot because another view may be possible, that cannot because another view may be possible, that cannot be the basis for interference in exercise of writ be the basis for interference in exercise of writ be the basis for interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. jurisdiction. jurisdiction.

That finding is supported by as partners. That finding is supported by as partners. That finding is supported by materials on record and is a possible view. In materials on record and is a possible view. In materials on record and is a possible view. In the circumstances, it is not possible for this the circumstances, it is not possible for this the circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to interfere with the finding of fact Court to interfere with the finding of fact Court to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the three authorities below. The recorded by the three authorities below. The recorded by the three authorities below. The argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners argument canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners that initiation of proceedings under section 32-G that initiation of proceedings under section 32-G that initiation of proceedings under section 32-G of the Act presupposes that landlord and tenant of the Act presupposes that landlord and tenant of the Act presupposes that landlord and tenant relationship existed between the parties is relationship existed between the parties is relationship existed between the parties is fallacious.

Merely because those proceedings are fallacious. Merely because those proceedings are fallacious. Merely because those proceedings are initiated, that does not mean that relation has initiated, that does not mean that relation has initiated, that does not mean that relation has been admitted or has been found to be so by a been admitted or has been found to be so by a been admitted or has been found to be so by a Court of competent jurisdiction. On the other Court of competent jurisdiction. On the other Court of competent jurisdiction. On the other hand, the issue of relationship between the hand, the issue of relationship between the hand, the issue of relationship between the parties has been considered in the present parties has been considered in the present parties has been considered in the present proceedings throughout by the three authorities proceedings throughout by the three authorities proceedings throughout by the three authorities below and the conclusion reached by them on that below and the conclusion reached by them on that below and the conclusion reached by them on that issue is founded on materials available on issue is founded on materials available on issue is founded on materials available on record.

It is, therefore, not possible to record. It is, therefore, not possible to record. It is, therefore, not possible to countenance the argument that the authorities countenance the argument that the authorities countenance the argument that the authorities below have committed manifest error. I find no below have committed manifest error. I find no below have committed manifest error. I find no :7: merit in the submission that the authorities merit in the submission that the authorities merit in the submission that the authorities below have committed any error in ignoring the below have committed any error in ignoring the below have committed any error in ignoring the Mutation Entry No. 1995, being an improper Mutation Entry No. 1995, being an improper Mutation Entry No. 1995, being an improper entry. That is not the only basis on which the entry. That is not the only basis on which the entry. That is not the only basis on which the matter could have been decided.

The authorities matter could have been decided. The authorities matter could have been decided. The authorities have also found as of fact that there is no rent have also found as of fact that there is no rent have also found as of fact that there is no rent receipt or case of oral agreement between the receipt or case of oral agreement between the receipt or case of oral agreement between the parties. All other aspects noted by the parties. All other aspects noted by the parties. All other aspects noted by the authorities below are equally relevant for authorities below are equally relevant for authorities below are equally relevant for deciding the point in issue. deciding the point in issue. deciding the point in issue.