JUDGMENT - D.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Mr. Karandikar for the petitioners and Mr. Shastri for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 19th September 1985 by which the order of Tahsildar and A.L.T. dated 31-8-1961 was declared as a nullity order and matter was remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh inquiry and decision according to law.

3. The proceedings before the Additional Mamlatdar and A.L.T. were started at the instance of the petitioner and one Shankar Jangal under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. (herein after referred to as the Tenancy Act). They came to be decided by the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. in August 1961 in favour of the petitioner and they were on the basis of the revenue record in which the name of the petitioner was shown as a tenant or a protected tenant. Shankar Jangal was also one of the parties to the said proceedings as tenant No. 2 and landlord was Ganpatrao Naraanrao Vinchurkar through General Mukhtyar Kashinath Vinayak Dingore. By this order dated 31-8-1961 the Mamlatdar and A.L.T. fixed purchase price and also ordered that on deposit of purchase price a certificate of purchase should be issued in the name of the petitioner under section 32-M and 43 of the Tenancy Act.

4. After about 22 years the present respondents challenged the said order before the Sub Divisional Officer, Nasik. However that tenancy appeal was rejected by the Sub Divisional Officer as hopelessly barred by limitation. The respondents challenged this order before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (herein after referred to as the M.R.T.) and the M.R.T. observed that since there is non-compliance to the mandatory provisions of section 32-G i.e. non-issuance of a public notice and serving a notice on individual tenant, the order was a nullity and as such bar of limitation would not apply.

5. According to Mr. Karandikar, the observations and the findings of the M.R.T. were contrary to law. It was firstly contended that the respondents were no where concerned with the land, that they were brothers of original tenant Shankar Jangal and not the legal heirs. He also contended that in the revenue record from 1950 onwards the name of father of Shankar Jangal was nowhere shown as tenant and consequently the respondents could not claim tenancy right by way of inheritance or succession. He also pointed out that the Sub Divisional Officer was perfectly justified in rejecting the appeal as the same was filed after about 22 years and the M.R.T. even though held that the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation, the same was allowed and the matter was remanded on the ground that order was a nullity meaning thereby null and void order could be challenged at any time. Mr. Karandikar relied upon certain authorities in support of his contentions viz. 1) A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 2219 (State of Punjab v. Gurdev Singh)1, 2) 1998(4) All M.R. 419 (Kashinath Damu Gavare v. Damu Bala Kapse)2, 1984(1) Bom.C.R. 14 (Narhar Shamrao Deshpande v. Lakhu Ragu Dalvi)3, and also relied upon Notes on S.C. and H.C. Ruling 1983 in Tenancy Law Reporter.

6. On the other hand it was contended by Mr. Shastri that in his statement before Mamlatdar and A.L.T. original tenant Shankar Jangal has stated as Vahiwat of the suit land was with him from his father's time. Therefore, according to Mr. Shastri this statement is sufficient to come to conclusion that Shankar's father who was also the father of the respondents was the original tenant and hence after the death of father individual notice to the respondents should have been given. Mr. Shastri also pointed out that the possession of the land was with the respondent and the respondent had succeeded in maintaining his name in record of right or in 7x12 extract till today. Mr. Shastri also pointed out that section 32-G of the Tenancy Act made it mandatory for the Tribunal to issue individual notices to all the persons interested therein as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document