Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 provides a remedy for summary eviction of a person wrongfully in possession of agricultural land, without prescribing a limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the judgment and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Bombay, (“MRT”) in Revision Application No. Tenancy A.70/1994, dated 24th November, 1995, whereby the revision came to be allowed and the order dated 30th November, 1993, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Niphad Division, (“SDO”), in an application under Section 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act, 1948”, for short), rejecting the prayer of the respondents for restoration of possession of agricultural lands, came to be set aside.

2. The controversy giving rise to the instant petition lies in a narrow compass and arises in the backdrop of following facts:

(a) The agricultural lands bearing Gat No.333 admeasuring 47 Ares and Gat No. 323 admeasuring 70 Ares (“the suit lands”, for short) situated at village Vinchur Dalvi, Taluka Sinnar, District Nashik, were owned by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, (hereinafter referred to as the landlord, which term denotes the original landlord as well as the successors in interest). Late Bhairu Tukaram Shelke, the predecessor in title of the respondents, (hereinafter referred to as the tenant, which term denotes the original tenant as well as the successors in interest) was the tenant on the suit lands. The original tenant was in cultivation of the suit lands since the year 1953-1954. As the status of the original tenant was contested, an application was filed by the tenant under Section 70(b) of the Act, 1948. The Agricultural Land Tribunal by order dated 30th November, 1966 made a declaration in favour of the tenant. The said finding attained finality with the decision of MRT in Tenancy No.A.708/1967, dated 29th February, 1968.

(b) In the backdrop of aforesaid proceedings, in the year 1984 the tenant filed an application, purportedly under Section 84 of the Act, 1948, asserting that the landlord, taking undue advantage of the illness and immobility of the tenant, had unlawfully obtained the possession of the suit lands prior to 9 to 10 years. The tenant was in cultivation of the suit lands on the Tiller's day i.e. 1st April, 1957. Thus, the landlord could not have taken possession of the suit lands otherwise than in accordance with the provisions contained in the Act, 1948. As the landlord has forcibly and unlawfully dispossessed the tenant, a prayer was made for restoration of the possession to the tenant.

(c) The SDO called for a report from the concerned Tahsildar. After appraisal of the material on record, including the report of the Tahsildar, the SDO recorded that the tenant was in cultivation and possession of the suit lands up to the year as from the said year the name of the landlord has been shown in the cultivator's column of the record of rights of the suit lands. It was further noted that the tenant was in cultivation of the suit lands since 1953-1954 and the status of the tenant was confirmed by the tenancy authorities, up to the Revenue Tribunal. The SDO, however, declined to restore the possession of the suit land on the premise that the tenant ought to have filed an application within two years of dispossession, in accordance with the provisions contained in Section 29(1) of the Act 1948. Since the dispossession was prior to 10 years, the application was held to be untenable. This finding was recorded on the premise that as the dispossession was by the landlord and not a third party, the provisions under Section 84 of the Act were not attracted and the proper remedy was under the provisions of Section 29(1) of the Act, 1948. In short, despite having found that the tenant was unlawfully dispossessed of the suit lands, the SDO was not persuaded to restore the possession of the suit lands to the tenant for the reason that the application under Section 84 was not tenable.

(d) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination, the tenant preferred revision appli