Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, J.
Baban Rambhau Tikande - Petitioners
Versus
Shri Vithal Mandir Swakul Sali Samaj Public Trust, Represented by Ramchandra Balaji Palekar - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6168 of 1998 with Civil Application No. 1481 of 2007
Decided On : 06-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.P.B. Shah a/w. Ms.Gunjan Shah
For the Respondent: Mr.B.R. Mandlik i/b. Mr.S.S. Patwardhan
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 32G,88B(1)(b),70B and 40 - Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 – Section 20 – Land - Fixing price of suit land - Learned counsel appearing for respondent vehemently opposed petition - He submitted that the petitioners preferred application under Section 32G of MTAL Act after a laps of about more than 25 years from date of death of one - He submitted that, on date of filing of application by petitioners under Section 32G of MTAL Act,e Respondent-Trust was already registered and therefore, the provisions of Section 88B(1)(b) of MTAL Act has application to present proceedings - He submitted that, the application preferred by petitioners under Section 32G was not within the reasonable period and therefore is barred by limitation - He however fairly conceded to the fact that, decision of Full Bench of this Court in case of Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant s/o. Maroti Dhakulkar & Others, reported in [1989 Mh.L.J. 710] taking the said view has been setaside by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panpoi Dharmal Sansthan Dhotarkherda Vs. Bhagwant & Others, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 307 - He submitted that, the adjudication of tenancy of petitioners under Section 40 or under Section 70(B) of MTAL Act was not undertaken by the concerned authority, i.e. ALT, either on an application filed by petitioners or Suo moto and therefore for want of declaration of petitioners as tenants, their claim for fixing price of suit land under Section 32G cannot be entertained – Held, Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Babu Wathare & Ors. Reported in AIR 1974 SC 2051, has held that, Tribunal while exercising its powers under Section 76 of the said Act, has no power to deal with the matter as an Appellate Authority and was not therefore entitled to appreciate evidence and come to its own conclusion - It is further held that, High Court while exercising its powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was not entitled to discuss evidence and come to its own conclusion on the evidence as to who was in possession of the land - That was a matter for Revenue Authorities - Aforestated deliberation would lead to an irresistible conclusion that, Revenue Tribunal has committed serious error in not only in reappreciating the evidence on record but also by applying provisions which are not germane for decision of the issue involved in present case and in view thereof, impugned Judgment and Order passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, is hereby quashed and set aside - Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 6th July 1998 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Case No.MRT/P.VIII-7/95 (B-136/95) Pune, allowing the said Revision and setting aside concurrent findings recorded by both the lower authorities fixing the price of the suit land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, “MTAL Act”).
2. Heard Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Mandlik, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
3. The record reveals that, the land in question is lying and situated at Village Kendur, Taluka Shirur, District Pune bearing Gat No.1918 admeasuring 1 Hectare 51 Ares. The said land was originally owned by the Vithoba Dev (Devasthan) of Sali Community. The predecessor-in-title of the petitioners, namely, Shripati Ganpati Tikande was a protected tenant in the said land, as he was in physical possession and cultivating the said land. The revenue record maintained by the Authority indicates that, since the year 1929-1930 Shripati G. Tikande was in actual possession and cultivating the suit land. That Shripati G. Tikande was taking various crops from the said land. Mutation Entry No.7687 was effected by the Revenue Authorities, wherein the name of Shripati G. Tikande was entered into the column of other rights as 'protected tenant', as contemplated under Section 3A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1939. Shripati G. Tikande expired in the year 1963 without any issue. Shripati G. Tikande had two brothers, namely, Rambhau and Laxman. A Mutation Entry No.10852 was effected by the Revenue Authorities in the year 1965, incorporating the names of Laxman Ganpati Tikande and son of Rambhau, namely, Baban Rambhau Tikande as legal heirs of Shripati Ganpati Tikande. Laxman Ganpati Tikande was treated as the Manager of the Joint Family. The record indicates that, the said Mutation Entry No.10852 was certified in the year 1965 itself. The petitioner No.2 Narayan is the son of Laxman G. Tikande.
The record further reveals that, on 17/07/1991 the Respondent-Trust was registered as contemplated under Section 20 of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. That on 17/09/1991 the petitioners herein i.e. legal heirs of Shripati G. Tikande filed Application No. 5 of 1991 under Section 32G of MTAL Act before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT), Shirur, District Pune for fixing price of the suit land. The respondents herein contended that the suit land is 'Inam Class-3 land' belonging to a religious trust and therefore the provisions of Section 32G and other related provisions of MTAL Act are not applicable to the petitioners herein. The ALT Shirur after hearing the parties to the said application and after perusing the evidence available on record fixed price of the suit land under Section 32G of the MTAL Act by its Order dated 28/06/1993.
The respondents feeling aggrieved by the said Order dated 28/06/1993 preferred Appeal under Section 74 of MTAL Act bearing Tenancy Appeal No.31 of 1993 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirur Sub-Division, Pune. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Shirur Sub-Division, Pune after reappreciating the entire evidence available on record has dismissed the said appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 18/07/1995.
The respondent thereafter preferred Revision under Section 76 of MTAL Act before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 (for short, “Revenue Tribunal”) bearing Case No. MRT/P.VIII-7/95 (B-136/95) on 07/08/1995. The Revenue Tribunal by its impugned Judgment and Order dated 06/07/1998 has allowed the said Revision, thereby setting aside concurrent findings recorded by both the Revenue Authorities below.
A perusal of impugned Order passed by the Revenue Tribunal would indicate that, it has taken into consideration the provisions of Section 88B(1)(b) of MTAL Act holding that, the suit la
