JUDGMENT - M.P. KANADE, J.:---By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-original owner of land Survey No. 61/1 admeasuring 18 acres and 28 Gunthas and land Survey No. 53/AA admeasuring 18 acres and 1 guntan, both the lands situated at Simodi, Taluka Kalamanuri, District Parbhani, the judgment and order dated August 14, 1975 passed by the learned member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is challenged.

2. The few facts leading to this petition are….

That the respondent No. 1 and one Kondiba, whose heirs are respondents No. 2 3 on record, were declared the owner under the provisions of section 38-E of Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tenancy Act'). The date of declaration of ownership is May 25, 1957. It further appears that in the exercise of powers under sub-section (3) of section 38-E of the Tenancy Act the learned Tahsildar fixed the price of the said land at Rs. 4,115.12/- in respect of the land Survey No. 61/1 and Rs. 354/- in respect of land Survey No. 53/AA. The learned Tahsildar who fixed the price also fixed the specified dates for payment at the specified rates of instalments each year. Instalments is respect of land Survey No. 61/1 for 8 years and in respect of land Survey No. 53/AA are for 12 years.

3. It appears that 3 notices have been issued prior to the filing of the application and they are dated 31-7-1971, 8-8-1973 and 10-12-1973. In spite of the said notices the respondents did not pay any instalment whatsoever. On failure of the payment of the purchase price within the stipulated period, the original owner filed an application on August 26, 1974 under sub-section (5) of section 38-E of the Tenancy Act for cancellation of ownership rights. Similar application was also made against the original protected tenant-Kondiba on August 27, 1974. It appears that the learned Tahsildar reviewed the purchase price on August 27, 1971 and fixed it at Rs. 285.20/- for land Survey No. 61/1. It is rather surprising to note that the said price is reviewed without any authority of law. Sub-section (3) of section 38-E of the Tenancy Act itself empowers the Tahsildar to fix the price in the presence of the parties and once the purchase price is fixed the Tahsildar is supposed to pass an order fixing the dates of instalments for the payment of the purchase price. Such an order was already passed by the Tahsildar on declaration of the ownership in favour of the tenants. The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Tahsildar and Agricultural Tribunal, District Kalamnuri by judgment and order dated September 6,1975. Thereafter, the Dy. Collector, Hingoli dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and those orders are confirmed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal at Aurangabad. It is that order of the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal is challenged in this petition.

4. The orders passed by all the authorities appear to be misconceived. The authorities have not taken into consideration the scheme of law under the Tenancy Act and, therefore, committed an error apparent on the face of the record which requires to be corrected by this Court.

5. Shri R.C. Bhadekar, the learned Counsel appearing in support of this petition, contended that the tenants have not paid a single farthing towards the purchase price fixed by the Tahsildar. The respondent No. 1 had paid an amount of Rs. 150/. On April 11, 1975. That payment is also made on the expiry of the date by the Tahsildar. According to Shri Bhadekar the defaults committed by the respondents are more or less admitted by all the three authorities and still erroneously rejected the application.

6. Shri V.B. Patil, the learned Counsel appearing in support of the respondents, streneously argued that the respondent No. 1 has paid the purchase price fixed by the Tahsildar somewhere in the year 1971, although late, and therefore, the application against th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document