Avinash Sambhaji Rane & Anr. v. Smt.Parvati Shankar Sawant

Smt. Parvati Shankar Sawant since deceased through legal heirs Jayawanti Dattatray Desai & Ors Mr.Kuldeep S. Patil for the petitioners. None for the respondents. .. Respondents CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 14th JUNE 2011. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Patil appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Perused with his assistance, the petition and all annexures thereto including the impugned orders. The only contention raised by Mr.Patil is that the Tahsildar (Agricultural Land Tribunal) had no jurisdiction to review or recall the order passed on 22nd September 2003. That order was passed by observing that the respondent No.1-tenant was not interested in fixation of purchase price in proceedings under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The other contention raised is 2 that the application was filed by persons claiming to be legal representatives of the original tenant but there was no proof that they were heirs and, therefore, the application was also not maintainable. 2 The MRT has found no substance in both contentions and for good reasons. The Tahsildar (Agricultural Land Tribunal) had on 22nd September 2003 adjourned the matter to 12th January

2004. However, roznama recorded incorrectly that the matter stands dismissed. The original record has been produced before the Tribunal and it found that there was an obvious mistake. That mistake was corrected when it was noticed. That was an exercise undertaken by Agricultural Land Tribunal himself. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case there is no question of any bar of limitation as contended by Mr.Patil to the proceedings. As and when the mistake was noticed, the Agricultural Land Tribunal recalled the order and heard the matter. On merits also there is complete application of mind by the authorities as would be indicated by para 6 of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The tenant has proved the case that he was deemed 3 purchaser as the possession and cultivation of the piece of land was established. In these circumstances, the concurrent orders do not require any interference in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The findings recorded are consistent with the materials produced on record. The petition is, therefore, devoid of any merits and is dismissed accordingly with no orders as to costs.

(S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)