JUDGMENT - BOBDE S.A., J.:This petition is filed by Jagu Tukaram Waghamale against the orders of the tenancy Courts, confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that he is not a tenant inspite of the fact that 32-G proceedings concluded much earlier, he has been declared to be a tenant and he has paid the purchase price and a certificate under section 32-M has been issued to him.

2. The petitioner Jagu Tukaram Waghamale claims to be a tenant of the land in question i.e. Survey No. 414, now gat No. 1004, admeasuring 5 acres and 5 gunthas, situate at village Arale, taluka Satara, district Satara. He has been found to be a tenant in possession of the land on 1-4-1957. Proceedings for purchase of the land under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") were concluded in his favour in the year 1965 and a certificate under section 32-M has also been issued to him. These proceedings were concluded between the petitioner Jagu and the earlier owner of the land i.e. the respondent No. 2 Dada Rama Kadam.

3. The earlier owner Dada Rama Kadam has sold the land to the respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo Bala Waghmale, since deceased and now represented by his legal heirs, on 31-5-1961 by a registered sale deed.

4. The petitioner seems to have been dispossessed sometime after the respondent No. 1 Dnyandeo Bala Waghmale purchased the lands in question. He, therefore, filed R.C.S. Suit No. 245 of 1967 praying for possession of the suit land from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In this suit, the Civil Court framed the following issues for determination by the tenancy Court and referred it for decision under section 85-A of the Act. The issues are:

"Issue (1-A)-Whether the plaintiff proves that he was a tenant in the suit property, as on 1-4-1957 and become purchaser of the suit property under section 32-G of the B.T. A.L. Act?

(1-B) Whether the sale deed dated 30-5-1961 passed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is valid in view of the alleged tenancy of the plaintiff?"

These issues were taken up for decision by the Tenancy A.K. The Tenancy A.K. found that the petitioner is not a tenant and there was no evidence to the effect that he was a tenant. The Tenancy A.K. found that one Ambir Dada Musalman had cultivated the land upto 1955-56. The petitioners name was entered for the first time as a tenant in the tenant and rent column in 1956-57. The Tenancy A.K. observed that this entry which showed that the petitioner is paying rent of Rs. 50/- appears to be more than five times the assessment which the tenants are required to pay. In particular, the Tenancy A.K. ignored the earlier decision under section 32-G of the Act under which the purchase price was determined and paid on the ground that Jagu, the subsequent purchaser, was not served with any notice on the 32-G proceedings. 32-G proceedings were commenced in the year 1965 by which time, according to Jagu, he had become the owner of the land. The Tenancy A.K. finally found that the petitioner has not been able to prove that there was a contractual tenancy in his favour and, therefore, he cannot be described as a tenant.

5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Asst. Collector, Satara Division. The Appellate Authority concurred with the finding of the Tenancy A.K. and held that since the petitioner does not have any land revenue receipts or contract such as Kabulayat or rent receipt, he is not entitled to be a tenant. The Appellate Authority also held that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of section 32-G since he had failed to obtain possession under section 29 within a period of two years. The Appellate Authority held that though the tenancy of Ambir Dada Musalman was there upto 1956, since Ambir Dada Musalman did not take steps for taking possession within two years, his tenancy was extinguished on 1-4-1958. The Appellate Authority, therefore, upheld the order of the Tenancy A.K. The petitioners revision to the Mahar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document