Babulal S/O Ganpatrao Runwal And 3 ... vs Ukanda S/O Bajirao Lonkar And 6 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 73 Bom

LPA 562.10.                                                                                1/5


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

                          Letters Patent Appeal No.562/2010
                                          in
                            Writ Petition No.774/2000 (D)

       1.      Babulal Ganpatrao Runwal.

       2.      Uttamrao Ganpatrao Runwal.        (Dead)

       3.      Suresh Ganpatrao Runwal.         (Dead)

       4.      Lakhan Ganpatrao Runwal.
               All appellants Aged Major, Occ-Agriculturist,
               R/o. Aasoli, Tq. Kinwat, District Nanded.

       L.Rs. of appellant no.2.                  (Amendment carried out as per Court's
                                                  order dated 13-12-2021)

       i)      Chandabai wd/o Uttamrao Runwal,
               aged about 57 years, Occ.-Agriculturist,

       ii)     Varsha d/o Uttamrao Runwal,
               aged about 40 years, Occ.-Agriculturist,

       iii)    Akash s/o Uttamrao Runwal,
               aged about 32 years, Occ.-Agriculturist,
               All R/o Vishwakarma Jewelry Arts,
               Ram Mandir, Ghatanji, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal.

       L.Rs. of appellant no.3.                 (Amendment carried out as per Court's
                                                 order dated 13-12-2021)

       i)      Tarabai wd/o Suresh Runwal,
               aged about 42 years, occ.-Agriculturist,

       ii)     Avinash s/o Suresh Runwal,
               aged about 27 years, occ.-Agriculturist,

       iii)    Shrikant s/o Suresh Runwal,
               aged about 22 years, occ.-Agriculturist,

       iv)     Rani d/o Suresh Runwal,
               aged about 19 years, occ.-Agriculturist,

       v)      Mona d/o Suresh Runwal,
               aged about 18 years, occ.-Agriculturist.

               All R/o Asoli, Tq. Mahur, Dist. Nanded.                 .... Appellants.


              ::: Uploaded on - 07/01/2022                ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2022 15:52:01 :::
 LPA 562.10.                                                                                                  2/5



                                                  - Versus -


       1.      Ukanda Bajirao Lonkar                    (Deleted as per Court's order dated 02-09-2021)


       2.      Vitthal Ukanda Lonkar,

       3.      Dnyaneshwar Ukanda Lonkar.

       4.      Namdeo Ukanda Lonkar,

       5.      Vishnu Ukanda Lonkar,

       6.      Sanjay Ukanda Lonkar,

               All appellants aged Major,
               Occ.-Agriculturist, R/o.-Talni (Bhambhora),
               Tq. Arni, District Yavatmal.

       7.      The Member, MRT, Nagpur.                                              .... Respondents.
       ********************************************************************************************************
               Mr. S.P. Palshikar and Mr. N.S. Warulkar, Advocates for appellants.
               Mr. P.R. Karekar and Mr.R.D. Narkhede, Advocates for resp. nos. 2 to 6.
       ********************************************************************************************************



                                     CORAM          : A.S. CHANDURKAR &
                                                      PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.

DATE : 04-01-2022.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

The challenge raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is to the

judgment of learned Single Judge dated 12-08-2010 in Writ Petition

No.774 of 2000. By the said judgment, the Writ Petition preferred by

the present appellants for challenging the order passed by the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in proceedings under Section 111 of the

Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act,

1958 (for short, 'the said Act') has been dismissed.

LPA 562.10. 3/5

2. The brief facts are that it is the case of the appellants

herein that they preferred proceedings under Section 120 of the said

Act seeking summary eviction of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 from field

Survey No.81, admeasuring about 25.34 acres. According to them, the

predecessor Ganpat was the tenant of the land that was owned by one

Tikamdas. The occupation of Ganpat was as a tenant. On 09-06-1965,

Tikamdas sold the said land to Ganpat and on the same day Ganpat

sold the aforesaid land to Ukanda Lonkar. The Sub-Divisional Officer

vide order dated 08-10-1998 allowed the application filed under

Section 120 of the said Act and directed possession to be handed over

to the appellants. The revision application preferred by the respondent

nos. 1 to 6 was then allowed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by

holding that Ganpat had privately purchased the land in question

from Tikamdas and that the said Sale Deed had been validated by the

Tahsildar on 25-11-1968. Since Ganpat had paid penalty of Re. 1 as

per the order passed under Section 122 (2) of the said Act, the

provisions of Section 57 of the said Act were not attracted. On that

count, the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer was set aside.

The learned Single Judge has affirmed the aforesaid order.

3. Mr. Warulkar, learned Counsel for the appellants submits

that the fact that the purchase price of the aforesaid land was fixed in

the year 1980 in separate proceedings has not been considered while

allowing the revision application preferred by the respondent nos. 1 to

6. Since the purchase price was determined, the appellants were

LPA 562.10. 4/5

justified in seeking eviction of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 by invoking

the provisions of Section 120 of the said Act. He, therefore, submitted

that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer ought to be

restored and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal be

set aside.

4. Mr. Karekar, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 6

supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge and submitted

that the reliance was rightly placed on the decision in the case of

Chindhu Maraji Misal and another vs Kundalik Govinda Bhakde

and others, reported in 1983 Mh.L.J. 867 which was also arising

from the similar facts. He submitted that even before the Maharashtra

Revenue Tribunal the stand was taken by the appellants that by virtue

of a private transaction Ganpat has purchased the two fields from

Tikamdas. The provisions of Section 57 of the said Act were therefore

not attracted. Hence, no interference with the order passed by the

learned Single Judge has called for.

5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and we

have perused the documents on record.

6. It is not in dispute that the Sale Deed dated 09-06-1965

executed by Tikamdas in favour of Ganpat was validated by the

Tahsildar on 25-11-1968. As a consequence, there was no question of

seeking permission under Section 57 of the said Act, especially when

LPA 562.10. 5/5

Ganpat had paid penalty of Re. 1 in proceedings under Section 122

(2) of the said Act. The reliance was rightly placed on the decision in

the case of Chindhu Maraji Misal and another (supra) to hold that

when the tenant privately purchases land from his landlord and also

pays penalty, the provisions of Section 57 of the said Act would not be

applicable to such sale. The ratio of this decision applies to the case in

hand.

7. We find that the learned Single Judge has considered the

all relevant aspects and thereafter maintained the order passed by the

Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There is no jurisdictional error in the

aforesaid adjudication. Hence, there is no case made out to interfere

with the said judgment. The Letters Patent Appeal is therefore

dismissed. No costs.

(Pushpa V. Ganediwala, J.) (A.S. Chandurkar, J.)

Deshmukh