JUDGMENT - KHANWILKAR A.M., J.: - This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated February, 11, 1985 in Revision No. MRT-NS-IV-1/80 (TNC.B.112/80) Pune. The property in question is eastern portion of section No. 698 admeasuring 32 gunthas situated at village Kumbhargaon, taluka Patan, Dist. Satara out of total area of 1 acre and 32 gunthas. It is the case of petitioners that the grand father of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 Vithu Kalantre was permanent tenant in respect of the suit land. Mutation entry recording this fact came to be noted in the village record as back as on 17th October, 1949. After the death of original tenant his son Rama continued to remain in possession of the suit land. It is stated that the land was originally owned by the predecessor of respondent which was however, transferred in favour of Pandurang as guardian during the lifetime of Hindurao who was minor at the relevant time. Mutation entry recording this fact is noted on 23rd November, 1956 being Entry No. 7976. It is not relevant for our purpose to examine the effect of such transfer. Suffice it to observe that as the predecessor of the petitioners were in lawful cultivation of the suit land on the tillers day i.e. 1st April, 1957. Proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 were commenced. In the said proceedings, the father of the predecessor of the respondent Hindurao appeared and made statement accepting the fact that the predecessor of petitioners was protected tenant and which fact was fortified by the Mutation Entry No. 6467 effected in the year 1949. However, the said proceedings under section 32-G came to be dropped on the reasoning that the predecessor of the respondent was minor at the relevant time. Be that as it may, later on in the year 1977, respondent Pandurang instituted application under section 70(b) of the Act for a negative declaration that the predecessor of the petitioners Rama was not the tenant in respect of suit land. That application was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 1/77. The Tahsildar before whom the case was contested, by his decision dated 30th November, 1978 allowed the application and declared that the predecessor of petitioners was not in possession of the suit land as tenant. The Tahsildar, although adverted to the Mutation Entry No. 6467 as well as the statement of Hindurao, preferred to decide the issue against petitioners and in favour of respondents on the reasoning that there was no written lease deed executed between the parties and that the petitioners failed to adduce any positive evidence in the shape of lease deed, rent receipt or to establish the factum of oral lease in respect of the suit land in their favour. The Tahsildar instead held that on considering oral evidence adduced by the respondents, the petitioners had failed to satisfactorily prove that they were tenants in respect of the suit land. Against this decision the matter was carried in appeal before the Assistant Collector being Appeal No. T.N.C./Appeal/16/79. The Appellate Authority was, however, pleased to overturn the finding of fact reached by the Tahsildar. The Appellate Authority instead, relying upon the mutation entry in the 7/12 extract being Entry No. 6467, which prevailed since 1949, indicating that the predecessor of the petitioners was protected tenant in respect of the suit land and which entry remained unchallenged besides the oral statement of respondents predecessor viz., Hindurao, the father of Pandurang accepting the claim of the petitioners to be tenants in respect of suit land. The Appellate Authority made further observations with regard to the manner of transfer in favour of Pandurang. In the result, the appeal came to be allowed and the order passed by the Tahsildar was set aside and instead the petitioners were declared to be the tenant in respect of the suit land. Against this decision the matter was carried in revi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document