RNG 1 wp1195.95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1195 OF 1995

Hindurao Ganpati Mandhre

.. Petitioner

vs.

Mahadeo Vittal Mandhre & anr

.. Respondents

Mr.S.B.Deshmukh for Petitioner

Mr.P .J.Shinde for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J

DATED : 30th November, 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT

1.

The challenge by the Petitioner in this matter is to the Judgment delivered

by the M.R.T.Pune-1 in Revision Application registered as MRT.No.NS.IV.3.911

filed by the Original Respondent no.1 now represented through his legal heirs.

This Court has issued Rule in the matter on 28.5.1995 and stayed further

proceedings on 9.2.1996.

2.

The facts are not in dispute. The lands at Wai, form the subject matter of

this litigation. On 1.4.1957 i.e. the tillor's day a widow by name of Smt

Krishnabai was recorded as permanent tenant on these lands owned by one

Sakharam Ganu Madhare. Ganpat Krishna Mandhre was recorded as a tenant. On

13.10.1062 proceedings under section 32F were postponed by the Tahsildar and

the Agriculture Land Tribunal, Wai as the tenant was a widow. On 30.10.1988

the proceedings under section 32G were disposed of on certain grounds by the

very same Authority. This order was set aside by the S.D.O. Mahabaleshwar on

15.11.1989 who directed a fresh inquiry. The fresh inquiry was conducted by the

RNG 2 wp1195.95

Tahsildar Agriculture Land Tribunal, Wai and vide order dated 28.8.1990 earlier

order passed on 30.10.1988 was restored.

3.

Against this order Hindurao Ganpati Madhare i.e. the present Petitioner

filed an Appeal registered as Appeal No.101 of 1990 before the

S.D.O.Mahabaleshwar. After noting all these facts the S.D.O. found that the

order of Tahasildar could not have been sustained. He noted that there were no

provisions for staying or indefinitely suspending the matters of deemed purchase

in relation to lands in possession of widows and hence order dated 13.10.1962

was void and ignored it. He thereafter noted that on 1.4.1957 Krishnabai was a

permanent Agriculturist. He therefore, allowed the Appeal and declared that the

lands have been purchased by tenant Ganpati Mandhare through his heirs

Hindurao Ganpati Madhare (present Petitioner) on 1.4.1957. The lower Authority

was directed to determine the purchase price in accordance with law.

4.

The heirs of the land owners challenged this decision in Tenancy Revision

mentioned supra before the M.R.T. The M.R.T. found that the original permanent

tenant being a widow, tillor's day not postponed and after death of the widow

after statutory disability coming to end, it was necessary for tenant Ganpati

Mandhare to exercise his right under section 32F of Bombay Tenancy and

Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948. (Hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act). As those

rights were not exercised, the provisions of section 32G were not applicable. The

Revision therefore came to be allowed.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner in this background has urged that the

Revisional Authority has fallen into an error in treating section 32F as the only

mode in which a tenant can exercise purchase right. Submission is it is a

RNG 3 wp1195.95

additional mode over and above the provisions of section 32 which confer

deemed ownership upon a tenant on tillor's day i.e.1.4.1957. He points out that

Krishnabai expired on 22.12.1969 and proceedings instituted and going on

during her life time therefore could not have been ignored. It is pointed out that

on 1.4.1957 the deceased Krishnabai had become owner and it was n