JUDGMENT - ASHOK AGARWAL, J.:- It is indeed unfortunate and depressing to note that a short question as to whether the deceased original Applicant, hereinafter called as 'the Petitioner' is a tenant in respect of a small piece of land admeasuring 33 gunthas entitled to purchase the same under section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act, initiated as far back as in the year 1967 in still pending decision upto this date.

2. The land in dispute being Survey N. 258/22A, Gat No. 1794 was purchased by the predecessor of the Respondents some time in 1929. The said land was mortgaged to one Chapji Pagare on the 24th April 1931, who in turn assigned his rights to Ahila Chima Pagare on the 27th of April 1935. On the 17th May 1957 the said mortgage was redeemed by the present Respondents.

3. The proceedings under section 32G were initiated and the learned Additional Tahsildar, by his Judgment and order dated the 18th January 1968 dropped the said proceedings on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 was then a minor and subsequently the tillers' Day had been postponed. In the said proceedings the Respondent No. 3 landlady had duly appeared and her statement was recorded. In the said statement she deposed to the death of her husband and about her elder son - the Respondent No. 1 having attained majority and her minor son being still a minor. She expressed her unwillingness to sell the land and deposed that in case she wanted possession, the tenancy of the petitioner will be terminated within the prescribed time after the postponed Tillers' Day. The status of the petitioner as a tenant was never disputed by the Respondent No. 3.

4. On the 10th of August 1968 the Petitioner served this notice to purchase the said suit land. In the meanwhile the Petitioner was forcibly dispossessed and, therefore, he was required to file proceedings for restoration and by order dated the 29th of January 1969 an order of restoration of possession was passed and the Petitioner was duly put in possession of the suit land. The said order makes a reference to the order dated 18th of January 1968 whereunder it was practically a common ground that the Petitioner was the tenant in respect of the suit land. It is undoubtedly true that the aforesaid order for restoration of possession was ex parte, but the Respondents were shown to have been duly served.

5. After the Respondent No. 2 had attained majority suo motu proceedings were once again commenced and the learned Tahasildar, by his Judgment and order dated the 11th December 1973 fixed the purchase price on the assumption that the Petitioner was the tenant in respect of the suit land. The Respondents challenged the said decision in Appeal, but the same was dismissed. However, the Revision Application of the Respondents was allowed by the Revenue Tribunal and the matter was remanded back to consider the question as to whether the Petitioner was the tenant in respect of the suit land. On remand the Tahasildar, by his Judgment and order dated the 30th September 1977 held that the Petitioner was the tenant and once again fixed the purchase price. The Respondents' Appeal to the Deputy Collector was allowed and the matter was once again remanded back to reconsider whether the Petitioner was a tenant in respect of the suit land. On remand the Tahasildar, by his Judgment and order dated the 22nd November 1982, came to the conclusion that the Petitioner was not the tenant. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal and the Sub-Divisional Officer, by his Judgment and order dated the 7th of March 1983, allowed the Appeal of the Petitioner and held him to be a tenant entitled to purchase the suit land. The Revision Application of the Respondents to the Revenue Tribunal was allowed and it is held that the Petitioner is not the tenant and consequently not entitled to purchase the suit land. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Petitioner has preferred the present Writ Petition. The above history of the present litigation is yet anoth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document