A certificate under section 38-A of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 is conclusive evidence of sale as against the landholder and all other persons interested therein, and unless and until the certificate is quashed or nullified in any other legal manner, the entries made in the certificate would stand as they are and would be conclusive in every respect against one and all.

JUDGMENT - R.G. DESHPANDE, J.:---Heard Shri S.S. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri V.G. Mete, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 and Smt. Geeta Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 2, though served, preferred to remain absent.

2. The judgment and order dated 20-11-1986 passed by the learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad, in the Appeal No. 102/A/85 Osmanabad is under challenge in the present writ petition.

3. The facts to be narrated in the nut shell, for the purposes of the present dispute, are as under ;

On Mahadu Mali resident of Washi, Taluka Bhoom, District Osmanabad, happened to be the original owner and possessor of land Survey No. 988/A, having an area of 2 acres 12 gunthas, situated at the above said village. There does not appear to be any dispute that Mahadu cultivated this land during his life time. However, after his death, name of one of his sons - Savata, came to be recorded as owner of the land in question, inspite of the fact that there being other legal representatives of Mahadu. Those other representatives, as can be read from the record, were Sundrabai wife of Mahadu and two other sons, namely, Gokul and Pandu. However, as narrated earlier, Revenue record indicated name of Savata only. At this stage, this Court is not concerned as to how the name of Savata alone was taken on the record bypassing the names of other legal representatives. The fact remains that Savata was shown to be the owner of land in question.

4. The record further indicates that Savata executed the Kaulnama on 16-10-1967 in favour of one Sukhadeo i.e. respondent No. 2 in this petition. This Kaulnama, it is alleged, was executed by Savata on obtaining Rs. 1,250/- from Sukhadeo.

5. There appears to be certain civil litigation, which was required to be initiated by Sunderabai and other two sons of Mahadu in the shape of Civil Suit No. 74 of 1978 for perpetual injunction against Sukhadeo. However, the said civil suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom, on 30-9-1975. Naturally, Regular Civil Appeal No. 114 of 1975 was filed at the instance of the present respondent - Sunderabai and her two sons in the Court of learned District Judge, Osmanabad, in which the learned District Judge had passed an order of injunction against Sukhadeo, restraining him from disturbing the alleged possession of Sunderabai, Gokul and Pandu. With all the curiosity, I have gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge and I have specifically noted that though the matter related to possession, there was no decision whatsoever, on the point of ownership. While the proceedings were going on through one channel, simultaneously, parties had opened another channel, by way of Revenue proceedings, which are material for the purposes of the decision in the present writ petition.

6. Since Savata was shown to be owner of the land in question and as he had executed Kaulanama, the proceedings under section 38 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter, referred to as the "Act"), were initiated on the basis of an application by Sukhadeo and Savata, in which, a certificate under section 38-A of the Act was issued in the name of Sukhadeo Mahadeo Chede - respondent No. 2 in the present writ petition, on 17-2-1975. It will not be out of place to mention at this stage itself that, though the present respondents Nos. 1 and 1(a) to (g) were aware about the issuance of said certificate in favour of Sukhadeo, at no point of time, neither they challenged the validity thereof, nor the declaration was sought in that respect that the said certificate was illegally obtained and not binding on the present respondent No. 1 Sunderabai and her two sons.

7. On having obtained the said certificate under section 38-A of the Act, an application was moved before the learned Tahsildar, Bhoom, by Sukhadeo, who had become owner in pursu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document