Brother cultivating widow's land is 'member of owner's family' under tenancy law Section 4(1)(a), excluding deemed tenancy absent tenancy proof; Section 32F protects widow's retained lands from tenant purchase.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

1. By this Petition, Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 30 December 2019 passed by the learned Member (Judicial), Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, (MRT) dismissing their Revision Application and confirming the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Pune on 16 May 2016.

2. The Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) in turn had dismissed the Appeal preferred by Petitioners and confirmed the order of Tahasildar dated 5 January 2016 setting aside Mutation Entry No.2057. In short, the tenancy claim of the Petitioners in respect of concerned agricultural lands has been negatived concurrently by Tahasildar, SDO and MRT.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the lands bearing old Survey No.106/2017 (new Gat No.552), old Survey No.106/2013 (new Gat No.538), old Survey No.100 and 101(new Gat No.495), old Survey No.86/1/2,3,4,5 (new Gat No.452) and old Survey No.106/3 (new Gat No.554) at Village -Nimgaon-Mhalunge, Taluka-Shirur, District-Pune are subject matter of the Petition, which are hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit lands’. The suit lands were originally owned by Shankar Kisangir Gosavi, who passed away on 26 November 1931, leaving behind his wife-Parvatibai Shankar Gosavi (Parvatibai) and son-Dattu. Dattu passed away in the year 1934 and accordingly name of Parvatibai Gosavi was mutated in respect of the suit lands. Partvatibai had two brothers Kashinath and Gyanba. On 18 January 1945, Parvatibai adopted her brother-Gyanba and changed his name as Raghunathgir Shankargir Gosavi (Raghunath). Accordingly, Raghunath became heir of Paravatibai in his capacity as adopted son. Parvatibai’s brother-Kashinath Shivram Bharati (Kashinath) claimed tenancy rights in respect of lands on the strength of his cultivation as on tiller’s day of 1 April 1957. He filed application under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) before the Tahasildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT), which was registered as Tenancy Case No.98 of 1993. The ALT accepted the tenancy claim of Kashinath and proceeded to fix the purchase price in respect of suit lands vide order dated 30 July 2002. The ALT’s order dated 30 July 2002 was challenged by the heirs of Raghunath viz., Laxman, Kundlik and Anusaya before the SDO, Maval. The SDO proceeded to allow the Appeal partly and set aside ALT’s order dated 30 July 2002 and remanded the proceedings for fresh enquiry before ALT. In the meantime, Kashinath passed away and his heirs preferred Revision Application No. 95 of 2016 before MRT challenging the remand order of SDO dated 28 November 2005.

4. During pendency of the Revision before the MRT, the ALT proceeded to conduct fresh enquiry in pursuance of remand order made by the SDO. The ALT passed detailed order dated 4 January 2016 declining the tenancy claim of Kashinath and his heirs and set aside Mutation Entry No.2057 effected in respect of the suit lands on account of the first order of ALT dated 30 July 2002. The ALT however, directed that its order was subject to pending revision before the MRT.

5. The Petitioners (heirs of Kashinath) preferred Appeal No.52 of 2016 before the SDO, Maval challenging ALT’s order dated 4 January 2016. By order dated 16 May 2016, the SDO proceeded to dismiss the Appeal of the Petitioners. Petitioners preferred revision before the MRT challenging the order of the SDO. By judgment da