IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)
V.K. Jadhav, J.
CHABAN BHAU PHULARI AND ORS - Appellant
Vs.
SURESH VITHAL PHULARI AND OTHERS - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3500 of 1997
Decided On : 05-01-2018
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 - Sections 37, 39, 15, 32, 29, 31, 33, 31A, 32P, 14 and 31D - Amending Act, 1956 - Sections 31, 33B and 34 - Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 - Section 315 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 4, 5, 12 and 14 - Tenancy And Possession Voluntarily - Condonation Of Delay - This pertains to agricultural land and dispute relates to land admeasuring - Said land was originally owned and possessed by one and six others - Respondent no-3 were tenants on said land in village record prior to tillers day - Respondent no -3 vide tenancy application filed before learned voluntarily surrendered land in favour of original landlord and others and accordingly an order came to be passed by learned regarding surrender - Pursuant to said surrender tenants vacated land and possession was handed over to original landlords - said surrender was verified and accepted in accordance with provisions - Accordingly mutation entry regarding surrender came to be certified by revenue authorities and even names of tenants were deleted and names of landlords and six others were duly entered in village record in respect of said agricultural lands - Original landlords thereafter cultivated said land for some period and decided to alienate said land - Held, It is well settled that in delayed case unless same is decided on an application delay is not liable to be condoned - In facts of present case it clearly emerges that there has been no application for condonation of delay in filing revision application before tribunal - It is also well settled that where statute does not stipulate any limitation right has to be exercised within reasonable time - In case of improvement trust relied upon by learned counsel for respondents tenants supreme court has observed that while considering application for condonation of delay no straightjacket formula is prescribed to come to conclusion that if sufficient and good grounds have been made out or not - Each case has to be weighed from its facts and circumstances in which party acts and behaves - From conduct behavior and attitude of appellant it cannot be said that it had been absolutely callus and negligent in prosecuting matter for after it became aware of non-appearance of its counsel it prosecuted matter with due diligence - Supreme Court has also observed that delay is not so huge so as to warrant dismissal on such hyper-technical ground or which could not have been condoned - In instant case though there is provision under statute prescribing limitation in filing application or revision from date of order or decision of collector and further made provisions applicable learned member of tribunal has entertained revision without there being any application seeking condonation of delay and without condoning delay - Writ petition is allowed.
V K Jadhav, J.
The petitioners are challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 13.3.1987 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune in Revision application No. MRT-AS-I-12 of 1985.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:-
(a) This pertains to the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 176/1, admeasuring 21 Acres and 15 Gunthas and potkharaba 14 gunthas, situated at village Savedi, Tq. and District Ahmednagar and the dispute relates to the land admeasuring 6 acres and 5 gunthas, out of the aforesaid land survey No. 176/1. The said land was originally owned and possessed by one Laxman Gangaram Dange and six others. Respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and one Bandu Sagaji Bhingardive were tenants on the said land in the village record prior to tillers day i.e. 1.4.1957.
(b) Respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and Bandu Bhingardive vide tenancy application No. 20 of 1957 filed before learned Mamlatdar, Ahmednagar voluntarily surrendered the land from survey Nos. 175 and 176 in favour of original landlord viz. Laxman Gangaram Dange and others and accordingly an order came to be passed by the learned Mamlatdar regarding surrender. Pursuant to the said surrender, the tenants vacated the land and possession was handed over to the original landlords. The said surrender was verified and accepted by the Mamlatdar in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "the said Act"). Accordingly, mutation entry No. 1493 regarding surrender came to be certified by the Revenue authorities and even the names of the tenants were deleted and the names of landlords i.e. Laxman Gangaram Dange and six others were duly entered in the village record in respect of the said agricultural lands. The original landlords thereafter, cultivated the said land for some period and decided to alienate the said land.
(c) On 29.2.1960, the original landlord Laxman Dange and others executed registered sale deed in favour of the petitioners in respect of land survey Nos. 175/1 and 176/1 admeasuring 9 acres, 12 gunthas and 14 acres, 8 gunthas, respectively.
(d) In the year 1962, land survey No. 176/1 purchased by the petitioners was included within the municipal limits of Ahmednagar Municipal Council and numbered as final Plot Nos. 99 and 1000 of T.P. Scheme No.4. The petitioners from time-to-time sold out the part of the said land to respondent Nos. 5 to 16 and others and only 6 acres 5 gunthas of land remained in possession of the petitioners Chaban Phulari.
(e) In the year 1979, respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who happened to be nephews of the petitioner, filed an application before learned Tahsildar and A.L.T. Ahmednagar, alleging therein that the sale transaction effected by the petitioners be declared as invalid and possession of suit land be given to the elder brother of the petitioner viz. Baban Bhau Phulari, as manager of the joint family. The said application was numbered as T.N.C. Case No. 67 of 1979. The learned A.L.T. Ahmednagar, had recorded statements of respondent No.3 Khandu Balaji Jare and Dada Bandu Bhingardive. They have disclosed that the land survey Nos. 176 and 21 were taken by the landlords in possession for personal cultivation and therefore, they surrendered their tenancy. They have also stated in their respective statement that instead of personal cultivation of land, the landlord immediately sold the land and as such, they prayed for restoration of the possession.
(f) By order dated 23.12.1982, the learned Additional Tahsildar, passed an order that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 if at all having share in the property may approach the Civil Court and further passed order that the possession of the petitioners over the agricultural land admeasuring 6 acres 5 gunthas out of the land survey No. 176 be withdrawn and the land should be handed over in favour of the tenants i.e. respondent No.3 Khandu Jare and Bandu Bhi
Anna Tatoba Todkar Vs. Bhau Balu Makane
Bhagwat Sadashjiv Sarode Vs. Somnath Salunke and Ors.
Dattu Appa Patil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
Eknath Raghoba and others Vs. Somla Lalu Lamani
Hasan Bi Salam Vs. Madhavrao Rangnathrao Shinde
Improvement Trust, Ludhaina Vs. Ujagar Singh and others
Krishna alias Kisan Rajaram Karve and others Vs. Dinkar Anaji Kumbhar and others
Samarth Ramdas Math Vs. Atmaram Damu Rane and others
Uttam Namdeo Mahale Vs. Vithal Deo and others
Vithoba Ram Rahane and another Vs. Bhalchandra Sadashiv Joshi
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.