JUDGMENT - B.V. CHAVAN, J.:---A short question that arises in this second appeal is whether the decision of an Agricultural Lands Tribunal in proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenancy Act") holding that the inclusion of the Tenancy Act, though not correct in accordance with law, is binding on the Civil Court in a subsequent civil suit filed by the landlord on the footing that the tenant is not entitled to the protection of the Tenancy Act.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present second appeal are these.

Land Survey No. 103, Hissa No. 17, admeasuring 1 acre and three gunthas situated at Hadapsar, District Pune, belongs to the respondents, the original plaintiffs. It was leased to one Maruti Narayan Tupe who is the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 6. On March 3, 1962, the suit land came to be included within the Municipal limits of Municipal Corporation of Pune. It seems that since Maruti was in possession of the land as a tenant on the Tiller's day i.e. April 1, 1957, proceedings were started under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. On January 17, 1970, Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Haveli, held that inasmuch as the suit land was included within the corporation area, the tenant was not entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Tenancy Act and as such he was not entitled to purchase the land as a deemed purchaser. The tenant filed an appeal against the said decision but it was dismissed. There is no dispute that the tenant did not carry the matter further and the decision given by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Haveli, as confirmed in appeal, became final.

3. On June, 13, 1971, the respondent issued a notice of termination asking possession by the end of July 31, 1972. Since the tenant failed to deliver the possession the respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 533 of 1975 against the appellants for possession of the suit land. The trial Court decreed the said suit. The appellants filed an appeal bearing No. Civil Appeal No. 435 of 1978. However, the appeal was also dismissed on November 30, 1978.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal the appellants, the original defendants, have filed the present second appeal.

5. Mr. Ketkar, the learned advocate for the appellants, urged that it was now a well settled position that a tenant who was in lawful possession of an agricultural land on April 1, 1957, had a vested right to purchase the said land and the said right could be defeated only in the contingencies provided in the relevant subsequent provisions, which relate to the compulsory purchase under the Tenancy Act. He contended that it is also clearly laid down by the precedents including that of the Supreme Court that the subsequent inclusion of an agricultural land within the municipal limits of either a Corporation or Municipality vested right of the tenant to purchase a land is not defeated. Mr. Ketkar, relied on an unreported decision of Madon, J., (as he then was) dated February 25, 1980, in Second Appeal No. 1296 of 1973, arising between the same parties and urged that it is clearly held by this Court that during the pendency and final disposal of an application for exemption under section 88(c) of the Tenancy Act, if the land is incorporated within the limits of a Municipal Corporation the tenant does not lose the benefit of compulsory purchase under section 32 of the Tenancy Act which has already vested in him, merely because of such land being incorporated in the Municipal Corporation limits. Mr. Ketkar also relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1023 of 1970, dated September 2/3 1974, where similar view has been taken.

6. Now, the real question that requires consideration is whether the decision of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal dated January 17, 1970, as confirmed in appeal therefrom, holding that the tenant is not entitled t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document