IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an exemption from the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act must be issued by the State Government through a formal notification, and that failure to comply with this requirement invalidates any claims of exemption.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This Petition challenges an order dtd. 19/4/2014 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short "the MRT") whereby Revenue Application No. TNC/REV/SS/46/B/2002 as filed by Respondent No.1 has been allowed. By virtue of the impugned order, the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Miraj, SubDivision, District Sangli, in Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 2001 dtd. 5/3/2002 and the orders of the Tahsildar in Tenancy Case No. Nigdi Bk-32G/227/2001 dtd. 29/9/2001, are set aside, with a further order, that the case be remanded to the Tahsildar & A.L.T. Jat District Sangli, for a fresh enquiry and a decision thereon be taken in accordance with law, in the light of the observations as made in the impugned order.

2. The dispute between the parties has a chequred history. Respondent No.1 who was the applicant before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) in the Revision proceedings, is a Co-operative Society, formed with an object of joint cultivation inter alia, of sugarcane, fruits or flowers, etc. The Appellants who are the opponents in the said revision, are the owners of the suit land.

3. Respondent No.1 had taken the suit lands on lease from the Petitioner under a registered lease deed dtd. 2/12/1950 and 5/12/1950 for a period of 50 years. These leases expired in the year 2000. The case of Respondent No.1 and much prior to the expiry of the leases was to the effect that it was entitled to purchase of the lands in question as Respondent No.1 had become a deemed tenant under the provisions of Sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short "the BT & AL Act"). In making such claim, Respondent No.1 contended that the bar under Sec. 43-A of the BT & AL Act is not applicable to Respondent No.1, as an exemption was granted to Respondent No.1 from the applicability of the provisions of Sec. 43A of the BT & AL Act by virtue of a Certificate of Exemption, issued in its favour by the District Deputy Registrar Co-operative Societies, Sangli.

4. Respondent No.1 asserted that in the year 1968, Respondent No.1-Society had made an application under Sec. 32-G of the Act to the A.L.T. Jat, District Sangli for fixing the purchase price of the land in question. It appears that such application of Respondent No.1 was dismissed on the ground that Respondent No.1, had not produced an exemption certificate, as contemplated under Sec. 43A of the said Act. Assailing the decision on the said application, Respondent No.1-Society preferred an appeal before the Collector, Sangli being Tenancy Appeal Nos. 1/1968 and 2/1968. By an order dtd. 24/5/1969, the Collector dismissed the said Appeal for want of a Tenancy Certificate, granting exemption to Respondent No.1 under the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 43A of the Tenancy Act. Being aggrieved by the said decision, Respondent No.1-Society preferred a Revision Application before the MRT. The Revision was adjudicated by the MRT by an order dtd. 15/6/1970 by which the MRT remanded the case to the Tahsildar -Jat, (District Sangli) for a further enquiry, on the claim of the Respondent No.1-Society, that it had obtained an exemption certificate, subsequent to the decision of the Collector dtd. 24/5/1969. It appears that between the period 1970 till the year 2001, the proceedings were dormant.

5. However, the record reveals that on remand, the Tahsildar, Jat, District Sangli, initiated an inquiry under Tenancy Case No. Nigdi Bk32G/227/2001 and passed an order dtd. 29/9/2001, inter alia holding that the provisions of Sec. 32G of the said Act were not applicable to the land in question in view of the applicability of Sec. 43A. Against the said order, Respondent No.1-Society preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 21 of 2001 before the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO), Miraj. The Tenancy Appeal came to be adjudicated by an order dtd. 5/3/2002, whereby Respondent No.1's appeal came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the order dtd. 29/9/2001 passed by the Tahsildar. It is against th