JUDGMENT - PATIL NARESH H., J.:---The petitioner-deceased Vithal Baba had initially filed an application under section 32(1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1950") before the Tahsildar, Bhokar, District Nanded seeking eviction against his landlord Nawab Khan. The said proceedings had culminated and by a panchanama dated 20-11-1966, which is at a page No. 49 of the Record and Proceedings, produced before this Court, he was put in possession of the suit land as the petitioner claimed to be a protected tenant of the suit property. The original landlord Nawab Khan had executed an agreement of sale in favour of present respondent No. 1 on 10-5-1967. It is alleged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that, the petitioner Vithal Baba had signed as a consenting party/witness to the agreement of sale executed between the original landlord and the present respondent No. 1. Thereafter, the original landlord Nawab Khan had executed a sale deed in favour of present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 3-2-1968 in respect of the suit land. The sale deed is appearing at page 83 of the record and proceedings. The original record further reveals that an affidavit (page 61 of the R P) was filed by the present petitioner before the Tahsildar on 9-5-1967 that he had willingly handed over the possession and had surrendered his tenancy rights. On 5-10-1974 the petitioner had filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking possession of the property in question from the present respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The said application was registered as Case No. TNC/CR/2 under section 32(1) of the Act of 1950. The said application was rejected by the Tahsildar on 30-12-1974. The petitioner deceased Vithal preferred an appeal before the Collector, Nanded. The Collector by holding that the said application was maintainable under section 98 of the Act of 1950 allowed the appeal by an order dated 11-11-1975. The present respondents preferred a revision and the said issue was taken up before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by way of a Revision being No. 20/B/76-Nanded, which had set aside the order of the Collector and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar by an order dated 31-10-1976.

2. After remand, the Tahsildar decided the matter afresh by treating the proceedings as one under section 32(1) of the Act of 1950 and dismissed the same by his order dated 28-8-1979 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner deceased Vithal preferred an appeal, being Case No. 1979-TNC-Appl-32(1) before the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded but the same came to be dismissed by an order dated 15-10-1981. The petitioner-deceased Vithal chose not to challenge the said judgment.

3. The petitioner approached the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded by filing an application under section 98 of the Act of 1950 on 25th January, 1982. The said application was registered as Case No. 1982-TNC-CR-98-46. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their say, the Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Nanded dismissed the application of the petitioner by an order dated 27-7-1983. Against that order, the petitioner preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 169/A/1983, Nanded before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal by an order dated 11-11-1985 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner deceased Vithal preferred the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. To this writ petition, there is no reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Shri S.D. Natu, learned Counsel holding for Shri A.H. Joshi, for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the reported decisions of this Court and the Supreme Court. The alleged surrender of tenancy by the petitioner could not be held to be a valid surrender for non-compliance of the provisions of sections 19(1) and 47 of the Act of 1950. There was no compliance of section 32(2) of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document