ORAL JUDGMENT :- Heard. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, on 20th March, 1991 in the Revision Application No, MRT/NS/IV/3/89 filed by the respondent against the concurrent orders passed by the lower authorities, namely, by the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987 on 4th January, 1989 and by the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, on 30th July, 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227. By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, while setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities, had remanded the matter to the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry.

2. The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant in relation to the suit land situated at village-Pal, Taluka-Karad, District-Satara. Originally the land belonged to Smt. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi, the landlady, who was a widow on the tiller's day i.e. 1st April, 1957. She expired on 28th December, 1968. She left behind her daughter by name Parubai Sampat Yadav, as the sole legal representative. During the lifetime of Parubai, she had executed the Will Deed in favour of the petitioners, that is how the petitioners acquired ownership to the suit land. Parubai expired on or about 3rd April, 1977.

3. The proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Tenancy Act which had commenced in the year 1961 were pending for inquiry, and in the year 1979 the respondent made a statement that Smt. Bakulabai was the widow and that she expired on 28th December, 1968, however, he had not served any notice on the heirs of the deceased landlady within a period of two years from the date of her death informing his willingness to purchase the land. While accepting the said statement, and considering the fact that the tenant had not served any notice expressing the willingness to purchase the land within the specified period in terms of the section 32F read with section 31 of the Tenancy Act, the proceedings under section 32G were disposed of as ineffective. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, without any success. The respondent thereafter preferred revision application wherein the impugned order came to be passed while setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry as per the law.

4. While assailing the impugned order, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the MRT erred in setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities instead of confirming the concurrent findings by those authorities. In view of the failure on the part of the respondent-tenant to serve a notice on the legal heirs of the widow within a period of two years from the date of death of the widow, no fault could have been found with the findings arrived at by the lower authorities. Once the MRT having confirmed the said finding relating to failure to serve notice, according to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, there was no occasion for the MRT to set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and to remand the matter to Tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry. He has further submitted that in any case the ground on which the matter has been remanded relates to the subject of surrender of land by the tenant to the landlady which was not the subject matter of the inquiry before the lower authorities under section 320, while passing the order dated 30th July, 1984 in the Tenancy Case No. 227, nor in the Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987 before the Sub Divisional Officer which was disposed of by the order dated 4th January, 1989. He has also submitted that the MRT failed to appreciate that in view of the provisions of law which are very clear to the effect that the tenant loses right to purchase land once no notice is served within a period of two yeas from the date of death of the widow, the MRT could not have directed inquiry con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document