The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of tenancy authorities to conduct a proper inquiry as required under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly in cases involving the rights of tenants to purchase land from landlords.

JUDGMENT - BHOSALE D.B., J.: - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 11-10-1990 rendered by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, (for short, "MRT") dismissing the revision application filed by the petitioners and affirming the order dated 20-4-1988 passed by the Assistant Collector, Panvel Division, Panvel in Tenancy Appeal No. 8 of 1988. That appeal was filed against the order dated 12-8-1961, passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon in the proceedings filed by respondent No. 2 under section 14 read with section 25(2) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "the Act").

2. The factual matrix that would be relevant and material for considering the questions involved in the writ petition, in brief, is as follows.

Respondent No. 1 claims that he was a tenant in the land bearing Survey No. 12, Hissa Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8, admeasuring 1-Acre and 7-gunthas, (for short "the suit land"). Respondent No. 2 was the original landlord, while the petitioners are purchasers of the suit land. It is not clear as to whether the proceedings under section 32-G of the Act were ever initiated in respect of the suit land. The case set up by respondent No. 2 landlord was that he was minor on 1-4-1957 and, therefore, tillers' day was postponed as contemplated under section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act. Respondent No. 1, therefore, continued in possession of the suit land as a tenant after 1-4-1957 and since he had committed default in payment of rent, respondent No. 2 had filed an application bearing Tenancy Application No. 138 of 1961 under section 14 read with section 25(2) of the Act. Those proceedings were concluded in 1961 in which the respondent-tenant was called upon to pay the arrears of rent making it clear to him if he failed to pay the arrears his tenancy would stand terminated and possession of the suit land would be restored to the landlord. The order to that effect was passed on 29-7-1961. Since that order was not complied with, the order of possession was passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon on 12-8-1961 and in pursuance thereof the possession of the suit land was delivered to respondent No. 2 landlord on 9-12-1961. As stated earlier, on 5-3-1963 the land was transferred by respondent No. 2 to the petitioners.

3. It appears that the proceedings under section 3 of the Maharashtra Restoration of Lands to Scheduled Tribes Act, 1974 were initiated in respect of the suit land and the petitioners were directed to restore the possession thereof to the respondent-tenant. That order was carried in appeal by the petitioners bearing Appeal/Revision No. 12/1987 before the MRT in which the order of restoration of possession came to be stayed and that appeal is still pending before the MRT. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, seems to have filed an Appeal No. 8 of 1989 against the order dated 12-8-1961 before the Assistant Collector, Panvel Division, Panvel, who vide his order dated 20-4-1988, allowed the appeal holding that the respondent-landlord was not entitled to seek remedy under section 14 read with section 25(2) of the Act. That order was carried in Revision before the MRT which dismissed the revision vide order dated 11-10-1990 holding that the landlord was not entitled to take benefit of the provisions contained in section 32-F(1)(a) of the Act.

4. I heard Mr. Dewal, learned Counsel for the petitioners, for quite some time and with his assistance perused the impugned judgments and other material placed before me. Mr. Dewal vehemently submitted that the MRT committed manifest error of law by overlooking the fact that the partition of the joint family of which the respondent-landlord was a member, was effected prior to 1-4-1957 and in any case before 31-3-1958 and in view thereof the authorities below ought not to have interfered with the order passed by the Tenancy Awal Karkoon dated 12-8-1961 holding that Mamlatdar did not record his satisfaction in respect o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document