JUDGMENT - S.S. NIJJAR, J.:---This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed with the prayer for quashing and setting aside the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as "the M.R.T.", in Revision Application No. M.R.T.- K.P. 66 of 1983 dated 17th August, 1984 wherein the M.R.T. has confirmed the judgement and order dated 13th December, 1982 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur, in Tenancy Case No. 7 of 1976. The only controversy involved in this case is as to whether the Collector has jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as "the Act" when at the same time the remedy under section 29 of the said Act is available to the applicant. This controversy arises from the few admitted facts.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the suit lands being agricultural lands at village Mahe, Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur comprised in Survey No. 41 gat No. 73 admeasuring 2.05 hectares and Survey No. 38/2 gat No. 77 admeasuring 5.16 hectares. These lands were in possession of the respondent as tenant on the Tillers day. Consequently proceedings were started under section 32-G of the Act by the Tahsildar. Notice was given to the tenant to remain present on 25th November, 1959. He, however, did not remain present. His name was called thrice during the day but neither he nor his Counsel were found to be present. Statement was recorded of the Peon as also of the petitioner on the basis of which the purchase was declared to be ineffective. The petitioner was said to be in cultivating possession since 1959. Further proceedings under section 32-P of the Act were taken in view of the order under section 32-G of the Act. Again notice was issued to the respondent to remain present on 15th June, 1962. Again the respondent was not present. After enquiring into the matter the IInd Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. No. III on 15th June, 1962 passed an order under section 32-P holding that the petitioner is entitled to an order of summary eviction of the respondent from the suit land. Findings of fact were also returned by that Court to the effect that inspite of notice respondent had remained absent in proceedings under section 32-G of the Act. He had not applied for review of the said order. It was also held that the petitioner had no other means and he needed the suit lands for his bona fide personal cultivation. It was also held that the respondent had given up the possession of the suit land four years back and the petitioner is cultivating the suit lands. On the basis of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner applied to the village authorities to delete the name of the respondent from the revenue records. Consequently the name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue records by mutation Entry No. 145. The aforesaid entry was certified after observing the procedure under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The respondent was all along aware of the proceedings under section 32-G and 32-P of the Act. He was also aware about the mutation entry. The petitioner and the respondent both belong to the same village. Having lost the possession in 1959 the respondent seems to have done nothing till 6th December, 1962. On that day he filed an application under section 84(c) of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karveer Division, Kolhapur being Tenancy Case No. 7 of 1976. It was contended that since last several years he is cultivating the suit lands as a tenant but in April, 1975 petitioner unauthorisedly entered into the lands and started cultivating the same. It was further contended that in October, 1976 he secured 7/12 extracts of the lands and, therefrom came to know that the petitioner has managed to get the name entered for several years. Therefore, he sought summary eviction of the petitioner from the suit lands. In December, 1976 Sub-Divisional Officer passed an or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document