JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.:---This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Kolhapur dated 23rd July, 1987 in Revision Application No. MRT SS/9/1982.

2. The suit lands are situated at village Nagewadi, Taluka Khanapur, District Sangli. In all 4 lands are subject-matter of the present petition, viz Survey Nos. 36/1C, 97/7, 291/6 and 257/4 respectively. These lands were owned by one Bhau Aba Nikam who died on 17th April, 1953 leaving behind his wife Smt. Kasabai and daughter Anusayabai. It is common ground that the respondent No. 1 (Baba Tatya Nikam) is the cousin brother of Anusayabai. It is also not in dispute that there is no written Kabulayat or rent receipt executed in favour of the said Baba Tatya Nikam in respect of the suit land. However, the said Baba Tatya Nikam, predecessor of the present respondents claimed that he was tenant in respect of the suit land on the basis of certain entries in the revenue records. There is nothing on record to indicate that the original respondent No. 1 had at any point of time paid any rent revenue with regard to the suit land. The tenancy authority proceeded on the assumption that the original respondent No. 1 was the tenant before the tiller's day in respect of the suit land and, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to Tenancy Act). In that proceedings statement of Anusayabai appears to have been recorded in which she has deposed that Baba Tatya Nikam was her cousin brother and was occupying the suit lands prior to tiller's day. It is relevant to note that Anusayabai gave another statement before the authority on 16-11-1963 that she had never stated in her earlier statement that respondent No. 1 was tenant in respect of the suit land. Besides, when the statements of Anusayabai were recorded by the authorities, Kasabai widow of original landlord Bhau Aba Nikam, was still alive. It is not in dispute that no notice was given to the said Kasabai regarding the proceedings, though in ordinary course she had become landlady being widow of original landlord Bhau Aba Nikam. Kasabai however, died much after the statement of Anusayabai was recorded on 25-10-1962. Suffice it to point out that Tenancy Authority by its order dated 22-3-1963 held that Baba Tatya Nikam, original respondent No. 1 herein, was tenant prior to tiller's day only in respect of land bearing Survey No. 36/1-C referred to above. This decision was challenged by Anusayabai before the Appellate Authority by way of Appeal No. 23 of 1965. Even the original respondent No. 1 tenant filed Appeal against the same decision, being dissatisfied by the finding returned by the tenancy authority that he was not tenant in respect of other lands prior to the tiller's day, by way of Appeal No. 328 of 1964. Both the appeals were heard and decided together by the Appellate Authority vide judgment and order dated 4-7-1967. The Appellate Authority allowed the appeal preferred by Anusayabai and reversed the conclusion reached by the first authority that the original respondent No. 1 was tenant in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 36/1-C, whereas the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 came to be dismissed. The Appellate Authority found that the original respondent No. 1 may get himself declared as tenant by taking recourse to proceedings as permissible in law. The respondent No. 1 did not take recourse to that measure but, instead, challenged the decision of the Appellate Authority by way of revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revisional Authority by its order dated 25-11-1968 partly allowed the revision observing that instead of requiring the tenant to take recourse to remedy for declaring himself as a tenant prior to tiller's day, the authority may make reference to the Tahasildar for deciding that issue. Purs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document