JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with a prayer for quashing and setting aside the judgement and order dated 26th March, 1980 passed by the Additional Tahsildar in an enquiry under section 32-P(1) read with section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Act", the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvir Division, Kolhapur in T.N.C. Appeal No. 116 of 1980 dated 24th March, 1982 and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur, hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T." in Revision Application No. M.R.T. KP. 56/82 dated 28th September, 1983.

2.Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the land in dispute R.S. 211/3 admeasuring 1-30 was held by two landlords. One was Shri Kashinath Vishnu Joshi who was holding 0-9-7 share and the other was Smt. Radhabai wd/o Narayan Joshi who was holding 0-6-5 share. In the present writ petition we are only concerned with the share of Smt. Radhabai Joshi. She was admittedly a widow on 1-4-57. She was not a member of Kashinath's family. She was holding a distinct and definite share in the suit land. The tenant admitted that there was a separate lease with her and there existed a separate tenancy relationship between the petitioner and Radhabai. Since Radhabai was a widow on 1-4-57 the relevant proceedings had to be taken under section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act. However, unnecessarily proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were taken. The purchase of the tenant was declared to be ineffective as he failed to remain present at the enquiry. This order came to be passed by the A.L.T. on 31st July, 1962. The intimation of this order was given to the tenant on 14th November, 1972. On 23rd November, 1972 i.e. within 10 days from the receipt of the intimation the tenant exercised his rights for review as provided for under section 32-G(3) of the Act. No order was passed under the proviso to section 32-G(3) of the Act on this revision application. The A.L.T. went ahead with the 32-P enquiry and directed the restoration of possession of the suit land to the landlord by his order dated 1st August, 1975. This matter was carried in appeal by the tenant being Tenancy Appeal No. 404 of 1975. This was allowed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his order dated 2nd March, 1978. The matter was remanded back to the A.L.T. for deciding the matter on merits. The order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was challenged in the M.R.T. in Revision Application No. M.R.T. KP. 246 of 78. This application was dismissed and the order passed by the S.L.A.O. was confirmed. The matter was taken up for hearing again by the A.L.T. and the order dated 26th March, 1980 has been passed. A perusal of the said order shows that the story put forward by the tenant' with regard to his absence on the basis of which the order dated 31st July, 1962 has been passed was disbelieved. It is observed that in his deposition which was recorded on 14th November, 1972 the tenant had not given any reason for his absence. He had also informed the Court that he intended to go in appeal which in fact he did not do so. Thus it is observed that the pretext of illness seem to be an afterthought. Thus the review application was rejected. The A.L.T. observed that the review is rejected formally simply because the very basic order declaring the tenants purchase ineffective was without jurisdiction. It is held that since Radhabai was a widow on 1-4-57 the question of taking any proceedings under section 32-G of the Act did not arise. Thus since there was no valid enquiry under section 32-P there was no review also. Thereafter the trial Court observed that Radhabai died on 16th March, 1972. She has been succeeded by the present landlord under a registered Will No. 2441/21-5-69. His succession is noted by Mutation Entry No. 492/24-9-73. This has not been obj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document