A court cannot sit in judgment over the validity of an order passed by another authority which is also a creature of the same statute.

JUDGMENT - R.A. JAHAGIRDAR, J.:---This petition arises out of proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act". Five lands were the subject-matter of the tenancy of the petitioner. Those lands are situated in Village Wathar in Phaltan Taluka of Satara Distirct. The lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/3 and 40/6 originally belonged to one Krishna Maruti Parit after whose death respondent No. 3 succeeded to the lands as the owner. Respondent No. 3, therefore, became the landlord of the petitioner in respect of these three lands. Two other lands, namely lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/2 and 40/5 originally belonged to one Ranu Keru Parit and the first respondent in this petition is the heir of the said Ranu Keru Parit. She is now the landlady of the petitioner in respect of the said two lands.

2. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were held and as the courts below have found, notice of these proceedings was admittedly served upon the petitioner. On 5th of October, 1960, on which day the proceedings under section 32-G were held, the petitioner was absent and, therefore, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal declared the purchase ineffective. No grievance was made by the petitioner against this order.

3. Thereafter, on 24th of December, 1962, an order under section 32-P of the Bombay

Tenancy Act was passed. By this order the possession of all the land was directed to be restored to the respective landlords. No grievance was made by the petitioner against this order also. In the year 1965, in execution of the aforesaid order, lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/3 and 40/6 were handed over into the possession of respondent No. 3. It must, therefore, necessarily follow that at least on this date on which the petitioner of the said lands was handed over to respondent No. 3, the petitioner must have come to know that an order under section 32-P to his prejudice has been passed. Despite this, the petitioner did not take any step against the order passed on 24th of December, 1962 nor against the order passed on 5th of October, 1960.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1969 in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Phaltan for a declaration that she is the owner of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/2 and 40/5 and for possession of the same. Summons of this suit was served upon the petitioner on 5th of October, 1969. It is only thereafter that the petitioner filed an appeal, being Tenancy Appeal No. 31 of 1970, which was heard and dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector of Tenancy Appeals, Satara by his judgment and order dated 28th of July, 1970. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal upon holding that the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal against the orders passed on 5th October, 1960 and 24th December, 1962. The Deputy Collector also noticed that the petitioner must have come to know of the orders passed at least on 14th of August, 1965 when the possession of three lands was handed over to respondent No. 3. He was also satisfied that intimation of the order passed on 5th October, 1960 must have been given to the petitioner, despite his statement to the contrary.

5. This order of 28th July, 1970 dismissing the Tenancy Appeal No. 31 of 1970 was challenged by the petitioner in a revision application being Tenancy Application No. 551 of 1970, which was heard and allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Kolhapur by its judgment and order dated 27th of March, 1972. While so allowing the appeal, the Tribunal took the view that intimation of the order passed on 5th of October, 1960 declaring the purchase ineffective does not seem to have been given to the petitioner. It may be stated at this stage that respondent No. 1 was not present before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal when this revision application was disposed of.

6. Respondent No. 1 thereafter filed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document