Back
1984 Supreme(Bom) 113
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.R. Waikar G.A. Paunikar, JJ.
Laxman s/o Narhar @ Narsingh Saraf.... Plaintiff.
Versus
Sukhdeo s/o Shriram Awaghare.... Defendant.
Civil Revision Application No. 375 of 1980, decided on 28-3-1984.
Advocates appeared :
N. Kamlaker, for applicant.
S.N. Kherdikar, for non-applicant.
The ALT is competent to make a reference to the Tahsildar under section 125 of the Act to determine the issue of tenancy.
Headnote:
AGRICULTURAL LANDS TRIBUNAL - REFERENCE - COMPETENCY - ACT SECTION 97(2), 98, 100(2), 102, 125 - EXPLANATION - BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS (VIDARBHA REGION) ACT, 1958 - The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) is competent to make a reference to the Tahsildar under section 125 of the Act to determine the issue of tenancy.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for possession of agricultural land, the defendant claimed to be a tenant. The ALT referred the issue of tenancy to the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar, who held that the defendant was not a tenant. The trial court proposed to refer the issue to the Tenancy Court under section 125 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The ALT is competent to make a reference to the Tahsildar under section 125 of the Act to determine the issue of tenancy. The reference made by the ALT to the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar was valid and legal. The finding of the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar that the defendant was not a tenant was binding on the trial court.
Issues: Whether the ALT is competent to make a reference to the Tahsildar under section 125 of the Act to determine the issue of tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The ALT is a Civil Court for the purpose of section 125 of the Act, which includes the Mamlatdar's Court constituted under the Mamlatdar's Court Act, 1906. Section 102 of the Act lays down the procedure to be followed by the Tahsildar or tribunal. Therefore, the ALT is competent to make a reference to the Tahsildar.
Final Decision: The revision is allowed. The order of the trial court referring the issue of tenancy to the Tenancy Court is set aside. The trial court shall proceed to decide the suit on the basis of the finding already pronounced by the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar.
2. In the present case, the issue arose this way. Deceased Kasabai was the holder of the land in question and during her life time, suo motu proceedings for transfer of ownership of the field were started. Sukhdeo, (the present defendant) contended that he was a tenant, while the contention of the landlady was that he was taken as a partner in cultivation by her. This issue was decided by the ALT holding that he was a tenant. In the appeal that was preferred, the Special Deputy Collector observed that the ALT had no power to decide the status of the defendant as a tenant and it should make a reference to the Tenancy Tahsildar. In accordance with this order after remand, the ALT framed an issue and referred the same to the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar. The Tenancy Naib Tahsildar held that Sukhdeo was a partner and not tenant. In view of this finding, the proceedings before the ALT came to be dropped. There was no appeal against this finding of the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar.
3. After the death of Kasabai, her son Laxman (the present plaintiff) filed suit for possession of the land from Sukhdeo. Sukhdeo again contended that he was a tenant and conteded further that the earlier order for reference made by the ALT and the finding pronounced thereupon by the Tenancy Naib Tahsildar are without jurisdiction.
4. The trial Court upheld the contention of the defendant relying upon some pronouncement of this Court. It, therefore, proposed to refer the issue of alleged tenancy of the defendant to the Tenancy Court under the provisions of section 125 of the Act.
5. The learned Single Judge who heard the revision preferred against the above order, made the present reference in view of the coinflicting views, on the point of several Single Judges of this Court.
6. In (Chotmal v. Bhala)1, 1967 Mh.L.J. Note 7, D.B. Padhy, J., observed that whenever such a question arises, the matter has to be referred to the Tahsildar and the ALT has no power to decide such a question. The ALT, is was observed, should have referred the issue for decision to the Tahsildar. In a later decision reported in (Darubai v. Gangaram)2, 1974 Mh.L.J. Note 80, the same learned Single Judge, however, took a different view. the ALT was also a Tahsildar and it had referred the issue to itself and having answered it against the tenant, the proceedings were dropped. In appeal, the Sub-Divisional Officer set aside the order and remanded the matter. In revision, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that the ALT could not refer the issue to itself but could itelf deal with the issue without making any reference. The learned Single Judge held that the decisions on the issue by the ALT in its capacity as Tahsildar was not vitiated and wiped out and it could not be ignored. The remand of the case by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal was thus held unjustifed.
7. In (Punamchand Balkisanji v. Gulabrao Vithobaji)3, 1967 Mh.L.J. Note 20 Justice N.L. Abhyankar observed that where the Presiding Officer of the ALT is a Tahsildar he can determine the issue whether a person is a tenant or not.
8. In (Kisan Dhawaji v. Saraswatibai)4, 1971 Mh.L.J. Note 57, decided by Justice M.N. Chandurkar (as he then was), it was laid down as a proposition of law that the ALT had no jurisdiction to refer the issue of tenancy in the absence of any express provision for reference. Section 125 of the Act, it was observed, could not be invoked by the ALT as it dealt only with the bar of the Civil Court. Section 97, it was observed, did not e
