Sitaram Aba Patil Since Deceased ... vs Sakharam Gangaram Sapte And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 105 Bom

JUDGMENT

J.G. Chitre, J.

1. Respondent No. 2 has been served but she has remained absent and none is present for her and, therefore, this writ petition is being heard and decided treating her ex parte.

2. Shri Karandikar vehemently argued and submitted that the M.R.T. was totally in error in respect of the facts and was in gross error in applying the law to the present set of facts and circumstances. He made reference to the judgments which have been passed by three forums below and submitted that a writ of certiorari needs to be granted in favour of the petitioners setting aside the judgment and order passed by the learned member of M.R.T.

3. Countering that Shri Thorat submitted that the learned member of M.R.T. rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the present petitioner. He pointed out that there was nothing on record to show that the present petitioner was ever the tenant of the said land. He submitted that the learned member of the M.R.T. has rightly appreciated the evidence on record in the revisional jurisdiction and has rightly applied the law and has rightly dismissed the revision application filed by the petitioner.

4. This Court comes to a conclusion that there is no ground for interference in the judgment and order which has been passed by the M.R.T. when this Court is exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence envisaged by Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is pertinent to note that all the time the petitioner was contending that he was the owner of the said land. He never contended that he was the tenant of the suit land and, therefore, how he could be entitled to have the exercise of power by the A.L.T. in view of section 32-G. Apart from that, when A.L.T. was exercising the jurisdiction in view of section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay Tenancy Act" for convenience), how the possession could be handed over to the petitioner without adjudicating whether he happens to be a tenant within the meaning of the relevant provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act. It was necessary for the A.L.T. to come to a conclusion whether he was a tenant on tillers day i.e. 1-4-1957. The A.L.T. did not exercise the jurisdiction properly. However, that was not treated to be an irregularity sufficient to initiate the proceeding by S.D.O. and that view has been confirmed by the learned member of M.R.T. when it passed the judgment and order which has been attempted to be tainted by this writ petition.

5. Thus, this writ petition stands dismissed with costs. Rule stands discharged.