JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---Agricultural land in the following S.Nos. admeasuring to the extent shown respectively originally belonged to one Dashrath Nana Mali, who died on 24-4-1945 leaving behind him his widow and a minor son by name Kashinath. The said lands were given on tenancy basis to one Kisan Mali in the agricultural year 1956-57 and as on the tiller's day i.e. 1-4-1957 Kisan was the tenant of the lands:

Sr. No.Survey No.Area (Hectares-Areas)

1)535/32-72

2)646/33-04

3)644/10-04

4)498/10-10

5)498/20-02

6)645/20-01

2.As required under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, (Bombay Tenancy Act for short) the Tahsildar (Agricultural Lands Tribunal) had instituted suo-motu proceedings and no notice was given to the land owners though, a specific notice was issued to the tenant Kisan Mali. The tenant's statement was recorded before the Tahsildar some time in July 1960 and subsequently by order dated 8-10-1960 the proceedings under section 32-G came to be dropped by the Tahsildar on the ground that the landlord was a minor. It is further clear from the records that Kisan Mali died some times in 1967 and till his death fresh proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were not instituted or such an enquiry was not reopened after it was closed on 8-10-1960. There is also evidence to show on record that a fresh suo-motu enquiry in the second round was instituted some times early 1969 and in this case also a notice appears to have been given only to Sakharam - the eldest son of Kisan Mali, whereas to the remaining two sons of Kisan namely Nanasaheb and Nilkant, no notice was given. These proceedings were also closed on 29-9-1969 allegedly on the ground that the relationship of landlord-tenant could not be established. On the demise of Kisan Mali the name of Sakharam came to be mutated under the cultivation column on behalf of three sons of Kisan Mali and presumably because Sakharam was the eldest son. It is also evident from the record that Sakharam subsequently made an application and requested for entry in the name of his two brothers as co-tenants and such an entry has been effected.

3.Kisan Mali (sic Kashinath)-the landlord, instituted proceedings under section 32-F read with section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy Act, before the Tahsildar for the resumption of the suit land from the possession of the tenants on the ground that the tenants failed to exercise their right to purchase the subject land within the stipulated period and the land was liable to be resumed to the landlord by evicting the tenants. This application was certainly not filed within a period of one year after attaining the majority by Kashinath - the landlord. These proceedings filed on 13-7-1976 came to be numbered as Tenancy Case No. 32-G/Miri/76 and were concluded by the Tahsildar vide his order dt. 30-6-1978. The Tahsildar held that the purchase of the suit land by the tenants was ineffective and the action for the restoration of the lands to the landlord be taken by issuing an order in Form No. XXVI. Being dissatisfied with this order passed by the Tahsildar, the present petitioner filed Tenancy Appeal No. 41/78 which came to be allowed by the S.D.O. on 6-1-1979. The appellate order came to be challenged before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (M.R.T.) at Pune in Tenancy Revision Application No. 115/79. The learned Member of the M.R.T. was pleased to allow the revision by setting aside the order passed by the lower appellate authority and he confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar, on 20-2-1981. The petitioner tenant has assailed the said order passed by the M.R.T. in the instant petition.

4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasoning given by the Tribunal to set aside the order passed by the S.D.O. is manifestly erroneous and it did not consider the fact that the date of birth of the landlord was 25-6-1942, who was presumably a minor when his father died and the date of birth could n

Click Here to Read the rest of this document