Exemption under Section 88-B of the Tenancy Act does not divest tenant of rights acquired on the tillers' day, even if a subsequent exemption is granted to the trust.

JUDGMENT :

(Avinash G. Gharote, J.) :

1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Patil, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 4, Mr. Karandikar, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1, Mr. Hamid Mulla, A.G.P. for the Respondent No.5 – State.

2. The petition questions the Judgment dated 19.01.2023 (Page- 32) passed by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT” for short hereinafter) in Revision against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer (“SDO” for short hereinafter) dated 14.05.2021 (Page-294) which has been set aside and the order of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (“ALT” for short hereinafter) dated 05.09.2019 (Page-249) holding that the respondent No.1 was a tenant in respect of land bearing Survey No.73/1 mouje Rohinjan and therefore entitled to purchase the same under Section 32 G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (BT & AL Act), has been restored.

3. Mr. Patil, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits, that Schedule-I of the petitioner-Trust indicates, that the land in question is the property of the petitioner-Trust, which was exempted, for which he invites my attention to the order dated 30.05.1959 (Page-169) passed by the Deputy Collector under Section 88 -B of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Act, 1948, (BT & AL Act, for short hereinafter), which holds that the lands indicated in Schedule-I enclosed were exempted under Section 88 -B of the BPT Act. He further submits that in the year-1961, the father of respondent No.1, had made an application under Section 32 G of the BT & AL Act, which was rejected, which is reflected from the Mutation Entry No.587 (Page-204) dated 18.01.1962. It is further contended that this position has not been considered by the learned ALT while passing the order dated 05.09.2019 (Page-249) on account of which the subsequent Sec. 32G proceedings stand vitiated. He further submits that reason for not considering this Entry as indicated in Item 10 at page-250 to mean that the entry is not readable, which is factually incorrect for which he relied upon the copy of the Mutation Entry at Page- 204, which indicates that the same is legible and indicates the rejection of the application under Section 32 G of the BT & AL Act filed by the father of respondent No.1. It is therefore submitted that the order of the ALT dated 05.09.2019 and the order of the learned MRT dated 19.01.2023 (Page-32) which holds that the rejection of the application of the father of respondent No.1 was not germane as the right to purchase merely stood postponed could not be said to be well founded, on account of the principles of res-judicata as embodied in Section 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE which are also applicable to proceedings under the BT & AL Act. Learned counsel relies upon M. Nagabhushana Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2011) 3 SCC 408 Paragraphs 14 & 15, which according to him dilate upon the principles of Section 11 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE . Reliance is also placed upon Trimbak Purshottam Patil Vs. Yashodabai AIR 1971 Bom. 295 Paragraph 7 and Laxman Dhondu Bhor , Since Deceased Through his heirs Vithoba Laxman Bhor and Others Vs. Chintaman Bhimrao Pagare and Others 1987 Mh.L.J. 641 Paragraphs 8 and 9 to contend that principles of res-judicata were attracted.

3.1. He further submits that the