Bombay High Court
Dattatrya Chintaman Patankar vs Maruti Honaji Haran & Others on 22 December, 2017
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 1993
Dattatraya s/o Chintaman Patankar,
(Deceased) Through his L.Rs.
1-a. Partibha Dattatraya Patankar,
Age 77 years, Occu: Household,
1-b. Sanjivan Dattatraya Patankar,
Age 53 years, Occu: Service,
1-c. Jayant Dattatraya Patankar,
Age 51 years, Occu: Service,
1-d. Pravin Dattatraya Patankar,
Age 48 years, Occu: Service,
All R/o. Flat No.1, Akshay Apartment,
Samarthnagar, Aurangabad,
Taluka & District Aurangabad. ... PETITIONERS
Original Applicants
V E R S U S
1. Maruti s/o Honaji Haran,
(Deceased. His L.Rs.)
a. Vithal s/o Maruti Haran,
age 35 years;
b. Govindrao Maruti Haran,
age 45 years;
All Occ: Agri; R/o Shivani
Tq. Kalamnuri, District-Parbhani.
2. Narayan s/o Honaji Haran,
(Deceased. His L.Rs.)
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2018 23:16:45 :::
2
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
a. Subhash s/o Narayan Haran,
age 28 years; Occ: Agri;
R/o Shivani, Tq. Kalamnuri,
District-Parbhani.
3. Babanrao Honaji Haran,
(Deceased. His L.R.)
a. Bapurao Babanrao Haran,
(Deceased. His L.Rs.)
3/A/ (I) Smt. Nilawati w/o Bapurao Haran,
Age 50 years, Occ : Household,
r/o Shivani (bk), Taluka Kalmanuri,
District Hingoli.
3/A/ (II) Smt. Surekhabai w/o Bapurao Haran,
Age 40 years, Occ : Agricultural,
r/o Shivani (bk), Taluka Kalmanuri,
District Hingoli.
4. Achutrao Honaji Haran (died) through L.Rs.
Keshav Achutrao Haran (died) through L.Rs.
4/A] Shahaji s/o Keshav Haran,
Age 21 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
4/B] Shivaji s/o Keshav Haran,
Age 21 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
5. Sadashiv Honaji Haran,
(Died) through L.Rs.
5/A] Sudhakar s/o Sadashiv Haran,
Age 40 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/01/2018 23:16:45 :::
3
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
5/B] Kishan s/o Sadashiv Haran,
Age 38 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
5/C] Suresh s/o Sadashiv Haran,
Age 36 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
5/D] Prasad s/o Sadashiv Haran,
Age 34 years, Occ : Agri.
R/o Shivaji (bk) Taluka Kalmanuri,
Dist. Hingoli.
(Original Non-Applicants)
6. The Member,
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad. ... RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. N. K. Kakade, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mrs. A. N. Ansari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-a, 1-b, 2-a, 3-a & 5.
...
CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.
RESERVED ON : 21st December, 2017.
PRONOUNCED ON: 22nd December, 2017.
JUDGMENT:
. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd
April, 1992 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad in Case No.86/B/91/Parbhani, the Respondent (original
Applicant / Plaintiff) has approached to this Court by filing the present
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
writ petition.
2 Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as
follows:
i. Original Petitioner deceased (Dattatraya) is the
owner of lands bearing Survey Nos.17/1, 17/2
and 27 situated at village Shivani (Bk.), Taluka
Kalamnuri, District Parbhani. Deceased Maruti /
original non-applicant had cultivated the lands as
tenant from 1955 onwards. Original Petitioner /
Plaintiff (Dattatraya) had issued the notice of
termination of tenancy under Section 19(2) of the
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
1950 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy
Act, 1950") to deceased Maruti on the ground
that deceased Maruti had sublet the lands and
failed to cultivate the lands personally. Original
Petitioner / Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya) had
filed an application dated 2nd August, 1973
purporting to be one under Section 32 read with
19(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950. Original non-
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
applicant / tenant (deceased Maruti) had raised a
plea that all the real brothers of deceased Maruti
are the members of joint Hindu family and
deceased Maruti being eldest brother and Karta,
look after all the family affairs. It has been
contended that the aforesaid lands have been
given on Batai basis to deceased Maruti and his
brothers and the name of deceased Maruti being
the eldest member of the family, incorporated in
the revenue record. All the members were
cultivating the suit lands since 10 years before
the police action. It has been also contended
that the notice as required under Section 19 (2)
of the Tenancy Act, 1950, never issued nor
served on deceased Maruti at any time. It has
been also stated that the Petitioner / Plaintiff
(deceased Dattatraya) has not filed the
application to obtain the possession of the
aforesaid lands within a period of two years from
the date on which the right to such possession
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
accrued to him and as such, the application is
not tenable in view of the provisions of sub-
Section (2) of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act,
1950.
ii. The leaned Additional Tahsildar by order dated
9th June, 1988 in File No.82/TNC/32(2)-19(2)-1,
allowed the petition filed by Plaintiff (Dattatraya)
and accordingly, directed restoration of the lands
to the Petitioner by terminating the tenancy rights
of deceased Maruti under Section 19(2) and
Section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950. Being
aggrieved by the same, deceased Maruti
alognwith his brothers preferred an appeal
before the Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Parbhani and the Deputy Collector Land
Reforms, Parbhani by order dated 16th July, 1990
dismissed the appeal by upholding the judgment
of the Additional Tahsildar, Kalamnuri.
Aggrieved by the same, the legal heirs of his two
brothers and others members preferred a
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
revision before the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, Aurangabad and the learned Member
of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Aurangabad by judgment and order dated 23rd
April, 1992 in Case No.86/B/91/Parbhani,
allowed the revision petition, quashed and set
aside the orders passed by the lower Courts and
rejected the application of the land owner filed
under Section 19(2) read with Section 32(2) of
the Tenancy Act, 1950. Hence, this writ petition.
3 The learned counsel for Petitioner (legal heirs of original
Petitioner / Plaintiff [deceased Dattatraya]) submits that the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has no legal authority to interfere with
the finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below. The learned
counsel submits that the question of notice as contemplated under
Section 19(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 has been concluded by order
of Additional Tahsildar and confirmed by the Deputy Collector. The
learned counsel submits that deceased Maruti (original tenant) had
sublet the suit lands to the persons, who are his real brothers. The
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
learned counsel submits that from perusal of 7/12 extract, which is a
part of record, it appears that deceased Maruti had cultivated the
lands from 1955-56 to 1966-67 and thereafter, sublet the lands from
1967-68 to 1972-73 in the names of different persons. From perusal
of Namuna No.5 i.e. the abstract of tenancy of village Shivani (Bk.) in
respect of the suit lands, it is clear that the suit lands had been sublet
to different persons. Even from the perusal of agreement
(VADAPATRA) dated 19th May, 1985 and 22nd March, 1987, it is also
clear that the suit lands had been sublet. The learned counsel
submits that the Petitioner had filed an application seeking direction to
the non-applicant (deceased Maruti) to produce on record the original
notice of termination of tenancy and despite the directions given by
the learned Additional Tahsildar, failed to produce it on record and as
such, the learned Additional Tahsildar has rightly placed his reliance
on the acknowledgment receipt. The learned counsel submits that
though copy of legal notice was not produced on record, the
acknowledgment receipt produced on record, makes it clear that
deceased Maruti had received the notice on 4th November, 1972 and
thereafter, the Petitioner / Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya) had filed an
application before the Tahsildar on 2nd August, 1973 i.e. after expiry of
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
six months period from the date of receipt of notice for termination of
tenancy. The learned counsel submits that the original Petitioner /
Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya) had examined himself before the
learned Additional Tahsildar and also examined two witnesses to
substantiate his contentions. The said witnesses are adjoining land
holders. In their presence, deceased Dattatraya had given the suit
lands to deceased Maruti alone for cultivation on Batai basis and
deceased Dattatraya as well as those witnesses have stated before
the Additional Tahsildar that deceased Maruti was residing separately
from his father and brothers at the relevant time. They have stated
specifically and unequivocally that the suit lands were given to
deceased Maruti alone for his personal cultivation and for some time
deceased Maruti had cultivated the lands personally. However, he
had sublet the lands to his brothers and the brothers thereafter,
started cultivating the lands as per the shares allotted to them. The
learned counsel submits that the Additional Tahsildar has correctly
allowed the petition / application filed by deceased Dattatraya and the
said order was confirmed by the Deputy Collector Land Reforms,
Parbhani. The learned counsel submits that the learned Member of
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal cannot interfere with the finding of
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
facts of the lower Courts by appreciating the evidence and comes to
its own finding. The learned counsel submits that the learned
Member of the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with the
findings of the Additional Tahsildar.
4 The learned counsel for Petitioners in order to
substantiate his submissions, placed his reliance on the following
cases:
a) Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Wathare and
others, reported in, 1974 Mh.L.J. 972,
b) Smt. Durgabai w/o Dattajirao Ghatge since
deceased by her LRs. & ors. Vs. Yesaba
Santu Kamble since deceased by his LRs &
ors, reported in, 2004 (4) MAH.L.J. 938.
5 The learned counsel for Respondent submits that the
learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has noticed
that the authorities below have committed error apparent on the face
of record. The learned Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
has not re-appreciated the evidence on record, however, has
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
considered the effect of non-compliance of the provisions of Section
19(2) and 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The learned Member of
the Tribunal has considered the question whether the cultivation of
the land by the real brothers of original tenant amounts to subletting of
the land and whether the tenancy has been terminated under Section
19(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 by issuing notice as required by the
said provisions and whether the application for eviction of tenant is
within the prescribed time of limitation as contemplated under Section
13(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950. The learned Member of the Tribunal
has considered this legal position on the factual findings recorded by
the authorities below.
6 The learned counsel for Respondent submits that it is the
contention of the Petitioner / Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya/landlord)
that deceased Maruti, who is admittedly the tenant, has inducted his
other brothers on the suit lands for cultivation and in this way, he had
sublet the suit lands. The other non-applicants are the real brothers
of the admitted tenant and they are the members of joint Hindu family.
The learned counsel submits that the term "to cultivate personally" as
defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Tenancy Act, 1950, it is clear that
in case of undivided Hindu family, the land shall be deemed to be
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
cultivated personally, if the same is cultivated by any member of such
family.
The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that in terms
of the provisions of Section 19(2)(d) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 read
with first proviso, no tenancy of any land held by a tenant shall be
terminated on any of the grounds mentioned in this sub-section unless
the landholder gives six months' notice in writing intimating his
decision to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such
termination. The learned counsel submits that in the instant case,
notice or copy of notice is not at all produced on record and merely on
the basis of the so-called acknowledgment receipt, the authorities
below have considered compliance of the said proviso. The learned
counsel submits that not only the notice in writing to be served on the
tenant is important, however, the grounds for such termination in the
notice are also equally important. The learned counsel submits that in
absence of the draft of the notice on record, both the authorities have
erroneously presumed the compliance of notice as contemplated
under Section 19(2) proviso. The learned Member of the Tribunal has
rightly considered this legal position and concluded that the original
Petitioner has failed to prove that the notice has been issued in
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
compliance with Section 19(2) proviso to the non-applicant for
termination of tenancy.
The learned counsel for Respondent submits that the
landholder has initiated the proceedings under Section 19(2) read
with 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950. In terms of the provisions of
Section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950, no landholder shall obtain
possession of any land by a tenant except by an order of the
Tahsildar, for which he shall apply in the prescribed form within a
period of two years from the date on which the right of such
possession is accrued to the landlord. The learned counsel submits
that it is the contention of the landholder that from the year 1965
deceased Maruti had sublet the lands to his own brothers and thus,
the cause of action arose in that year itself. However, the landlord
has filed the application in the year 1973 i.e. almost after the lapse of
five years. The learned counsel submits that all these legal aspects of
the matter have not been considered by the lower authorities. The
learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly allowed the revision
application and quashed and set aside the orders passed by the
authorities below. No interference is required.
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
7 The learned counsel for the Respondent in order to
substantiate her contentions, placed reliance in the case of Samba
Motiram Alone Vs. Tukaram Mahadeo Chandakar, reported in,
1980 Mh.L.J. 213.
8 In the backdrop of these submissions, relevant provisions
of the Tenancy Act, 1950, are required to be reproduced hereinbelow
(the relevant Sections 19 and 32 are reproduced hereinbelow
alongwith the definition "to cultivate personally"):
"2. Definitions:
(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in
the subject, or context,-
(g) "to cultivate personally" means to cultivate
on one's own account-
(i) by one's own labour, or
(ii) by the labour of any member of one's
family, or
(iii) by servants on wages payable in cash or
kind, but not in crop share or by hired labour under
one's personal supervision, or the personal supervision
of any member of one's family.
Explanation.- In the case of an undivided Hindu
family, land shall be deemed to be cultivated personally,
if it is cultivated by any member of such family:
.....
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
19. Termination of tenancy:
(1) ...
(a) ...
Provided ...
Provided ...
(b) ...
(2) The landholder may terminate a tenancy on the
ground that the tenant -
(a) (i) ...
(ii) ...
(iiI)...
(b) ...
(c) ...
(d) has sub-let the land or failed to cultivate
the land personally or has assigned any interest
therein ; or
(e) ...
Provided that no tenancy of any land held by a
tenant shall be terminated on any of the grounds
mentioned in this sub-section unless the landholder
gives six months' notice in writing intimating his decision
to terminate the tenancy and the grounds for such
termination : and
Provided .....
(a) ...
(b) ...
(c) ...
.....
32. Procedure of taking possession:
(1) ...
Provided ....
(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
(3A), no landholder shall obtain possession of any land
or dwelling house held by a tenant except under an
order of the Tahsildar, for which he shall apply in the
prescribed form within a period of two years from the
date of the commencement of the Hyderabad Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1957, or the
date on which the right to such possession accrued to
him whichever is later.
(3) ...
(3A) ...
(4) ..."
9 On careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by
the Tribunal, it appears that the learned Member of the Tribunal has
not re-appreciated the evidence, but considered the legal position in
terms of the findings recorded by the authorities below on the factual
aspects in terms of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act,
1950. The learned Member of the Tribunal has accepted the finding
of facts recorded by the authorities below, however, framed the
following legal questions arise in the matter:
(1) Whether the cultivation of the land by the
brothers of the tenant amounts to sub-letting the
lands?
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
(2) Whether the tenancy has been terminated under
Section 19(2) by issuing notice as required under
the said provisions?
(3) Whether the application for eviction of the tenant
is within the prescribed time limitation?
10 The learned Member of the Tribunal has referred the
definition of Section 2(1)(g) of the Tenancy Act,1950 and noticed that
if the land is cultivated by the other member of undivided Hindu family,
it shall be deemed to be cultivated personally by the original tenant.
The learned Member of the Tribunal has also observed that both the
authorities below have erroneously recorded the finding of compliance
of Section 19(2) first proviso, when the copy of the notice itself is not
produced before the Additional Tahsildar. The learned Member of the
Tribunal has also considered that only on the basis of the
acknowledgment receipt, if the compliance of the notice as
contemplated under Section 19(2) is to be drawn than the same is
erroneous and contrary to the provisions of the Tenancy Act, 1950.
The learned Member of the Tribunal has also observed that the notice
as contemplated under Section 19(2) first proviso, is not only required
to be in writing intimating the landlord's decision to terminate the
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
tenancy, but also required the incorporation of the grounds for such
termination in the notice. In the given facts and circumstances of the
case, the Tribunal has noticed that in terms of the provisions of
Section 32(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950, both the authorities below
have failed to notice that the application for taking possession is
beyond the period of limitation.
11 In view of the above, the aforesaid two cases namely
Maruti Bala Raut Vs. Dashrath Wathare and others (supra) and Smt.
Durgabai w/o Dattajirao Ghatge since deceased by her LRs. & ors.
Vs. Yesaba Santu Kamble since deceased by his LRs & ors (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for Petitioner cannot be made
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In
terms of the provisions of Section 19(1) of the Tenancy Act, 1950, the
learned Member of the Tribunal has passed the impugned order. The
learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly observed that the orders
passed by the authorities below, are contrary to the law and both the
authorities below have failed to determine some material issues of law
and there is substantial defect in following the procedure provided by
the Tenancy Act, 1950, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice.
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
12 The learned counsel for Petitioner has vehemently
submitted that in the pending proceedings before the Additional
Tahsildar, the Petitioner had filed an application seeking directions to
the non-applicant deceased Maruti to produce on record the original
notice issued by the Petitioner for termination of tenancy and despite
the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, the non-applicant
deceased Maruti had failed to produce the said notice on record. The
learned counsel submits that the said order came to be confirmed
even by the Tribunal when challenged by the non-applicant during the
pendency of the said proceedings before the Additional Tahsildar.
The learned counsel submits that therefore, the Additional Tahsildar
has rightly placed reliance on the postal acknowledgment receipt
produced on record. I do not find any substance in these submissions
for the reason that, if such notice is not produced despite the
directions given, the Petitioner was at liberty to lead secondary
evidence to prove the contents of the notice by placing on record the
office copy of the notice. Mere production of postal acknowledgment
receipt on record cannot be construed as a due compliance of Section
19(2) first proviso. It was essential for the Petitioner to establish that
six months notice in writing given to the tenant for termination of
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
tenancy and also to prove the grounds of such termination as
incorporated in the said notice.
13 In the case of Samba Motiram Alone Vs. Tukaram
Mahadeo Chandakar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for
Respondent, in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 of the order, this Court has
made the following observations:
"12. Mr. Ghate for the respondent contended
that this was a new point being taken up now in the
petition. No objection to the validity of the notices had
been raised by the petitioner in the trial Court. It is true,
in the trial Court, no such contention was taken. The
validity of the notice as a proper notice terminating the
tenancy, was the very basis on which the Tahsildar
could not under section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act, and,
therefore, it was for the Tahsildar to decide, irrespective
of whether an objection was taken or not by the tenant,
whether the tenancy had been properly terminated on a
valid notice. As observed earlier, the Naib Tahsildar,
Rajura did actually notice this point and he did hold that
the notices were not valid and the tenancies were not
properly terminated, though he again committed an
error by passing a conditional order of possession.
From the revision petition of the petitioner to the
Revenue Tribunal, it does appear that this ground was
specifically taken as ground No. (iv) in the said revision
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, but it
appears the Revenue Tribunal has not taken
cognizance of this point. This ground has also been
specifically taken in the present petition as ground No.
(iv). In fact a proper termination of the tenancy by a
proper notice under section 19(2)(a)(i) of the Tenancy
Act, read with the proviso below section 19(2) of the
Tenancy Act would be the very basis of an action under
section 28(1) of the Tenancy Act and an invalidity of
such a notice would go to the rood of the whole matter
and can be considered properly even in a writ petition.
13. Mr. Ghate then contended that if the
notices were held to be not valid notices terminating the
tenancies of the petitioner, then the case should be
remanded to the trial Court. It was urged that no
explanation in this respect had been got from the
respondent-landlord in the trial Court, because no
objections to the validity of the notices were taken in
the trial Court. If this question is to be enquired into,
Mr. Ghate contends that it would be necessary to get
the explanation of the respondent landlord as to what
he meant by saying in the notices that legal
proceedings would be taken against the tenant.
Therefore, Mr. Ghate requested that in that case would
be necessary to remand the case to the trial Court. It is
not possible to even accept this contention of Mr.
Ghate. The validity of the notices terminating the
tenancy has to be determined by the Court upon a
proper construction of the recitals of the notices
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
themselves, and not upon the particular manner in
which the landlord chooses to interpret those recitals.
14. In the view taken by me, this writ petition
will have to be allowed. The orders passed by all the
Revenue Courts below are hereby quashed and
instead it shall be ordered that the application of the
landlord-respondent for possession filed in the Court of
the Tahsildar, Rajura under section 28 read with
section 19 of the Tenancy Act, shall stand rejected.
The rule is made absolute with costs."
14 In the instant case, even the draft or office copy of the
notice is not produced on record leave apart the grounds incorporated
therein in compliance with the provisions of Section 19(2) of the
Tenancy Act, 1950. The learned Member or the Tribunal has
therefore, rightly held that non-compliance of the provisions of Section
19(2) of the Tenancy Act, 1950 is fatal.
15 The original Petitioner / Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya)
had filed an application against the non-applicant (deceased Maruti)
and his real brothers contending therein that deceased Maruti had
inducted his other brothers in the suit lands for cultivation and in this
way, deceased Maruti had sublet the suit lands. Though there is word
against word in the oral evidence led by the parties bout the status of
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
the family as a joint or separate, it is to be mentioned here that the
Petitioner has no where mentioned in his original application that the
brothers of deceased Maruti were residing separately and there was
no undivided Hindu family at the relevant time. It is simply contended
in the application that deceased Maruti had permitted his brothers to
cultivate the lands and as such, in that way, he had sublet the suit
lands to his brothers. In absence of any specific averments in the
original application, the presumption is required to be drawn about the
undivided Hindu family and in terms of the provisions of Section 2(1)
(g) of the Tenancy Act, 1950, the lands shall be deemed to be
cultivated personally, if it is cultivated by any member of such family.
The learned Member of the Tribunal has rightly observed that this
legal aspect of the matter has not been considered by the authorities
below.
16 The original Petitioner / Plaintiff (deceased Dattatraya)
has not stated in the application as to when the cause of action arose,
however, has admitted in his cross-examination that the suit lands
were given to deceased Maruti on Batai basis in the month of April
1955. Deceased Dattatraya has further stated that for 5 / 7 years
thereafter, deceased Maruti had cultivated the suit lands personally
Writ Petition 1743.1993.odt
and thereafter, sublet the suit lands to his real brothers for cultivation.
On the basis of the oral evidence of deceased Dattatraya, the
inference could be drawn that in the year 1967, the right to
possession of the suit lands accrued to deceased Dattatraya as per
the provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 32 of the Tenancy Act,
1950. However, deceased Dattatraya had filed the said application
on 2nd August, 1973 i.e. almost after the period of five years from the
date on which the right to such possession accrued to him.
17 In view of the above discussion, the learned Member of
the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Aurangabad has rightly allowed
the revision petition. There is no substance in this writ petition. The
writ petition is thus, liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:
O R D E R
I. The writ petition is hereby dismissed. In the
circumstances, there shall be no order as to the
costs.
II. Rule discharged.
III. Pending civil applications stand disposed of.
[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]
ndm
