Krishna Pandurang Chakole ... vs Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 17780 Bom

                                                                                                                                       2112 wp5445 of 2021.odt
                                                                                           1


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                                        WRIT PETITION NO.5445/2021

  Krishna Pandurang Chakole (Deceased) through L.Rs. Kantabai wd/o Krishna
                             Chakole and others
                                 ...Versus...
         Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Civil Lines, Nagpur and others

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,                                                                             Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -

                                                                         Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for petitioners



                                                                                        CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 21/12/2021

1. Heard Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the impugned order is contrary to the mandate of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Tenancy And Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, which requires that any application for purchase by tenant has to be made within a period of one year from the tenancy. In the instant case, as the claim is made that the tenancy was created on 26/01/1973, the application for exercising the purchase rights, was made on 30/07/1984 and therefore, in view of what has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Janba (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Smt. Gopikabai, AIR 2000 SC 1771, the application could not 2112 wp5445 of 2021.odt

have been entertained by the authorities. He further submits relying upon the judgment in Regular Civil Suit No.105/1983 that the father of the respondent no.4, namely, Kusha Mahajan was never in possession of the property in question, which is the finding recorded in para 16 of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid suit on 20/10/2011 and though there is an appeal filed against the said judgment, as of date, there is no stay in operation. He, therefore, submits that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal could not have dismissed the revision petition.

2. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after Christmas Vacations.

3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms N.P. Mehta waives service of notice for the respondent nos.1 to 3.

4. By way of interim order, there shall be stay in terms of prayer clause (b).

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA SUKHADEORAO WADKAR Signing Date:21.12.2021 18:18 Wadkar