Wamanarao Ganpatrao Akhare And ... vs Gulabchand Sewaram Firm Palshi, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 818 Bom

                                                                                                                                        931 WP 6862 of 2019.odt
                                                                                           1


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

                                                        WRIT PETITION NO.6862/2019

                     Wamanrao Ganpatrao Akhare and others
                                    ...Versus...
      Gulabchand Sewaram, Firm Palshi, through Anandilal Hajarilala Hajarimal
          Rathi (Dead) through L.Rs. Dipak s/o Anandilal Rathi 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 N.R. Saboo, Advocate for petitioners
                                                                         Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent nos.3 and 5
                                                                         Shri N.R. Patil, AGP for respondent no.5



                                                                                        CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 24/01/2023

1. Shri Saboo, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the father of the petitioners, namely, Ganpat Akhare was the tenant in respect of Gat no.156, admeasuring 12.24 HR, in respect of which, an application for determining the purchase price was filed, which came to be decided by the Tahsildar Sangrampur by the order dated 15/10/2007 (pg.17). In these proceedings, the present respondent nos.3 and 4 were not parties. Against the aforesaid order dated 15/10/2007, an appeal was filed by the original landowner Gulabchand Sewaram before the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon (Jamod), who, by his order dated 09/02/2010 (pg.21) set aside the 931 WP 6862 of 2019.odt

order of the Tahsildar dated 15/10/2007 and remanded the matter back to Tahsildar for fresh decision.

2. On remand, the learned Tahsildar by the order dated 07/03/2011 (pg.24) partly allowed the application and held the petitioners entitled to the land admeasuring 6.12 HR from and out of the land of Gat No.156. Two appeals were filed, one by the petitioners and the other by the respondent no.1/ landowner before the Sub Divisional Officer against the order dated 07/03/2011 (pg.24). In the appeal filed by the landlord/respondent no.1, the same came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer by the order dated 05/03/2016 (pg.38), however, while passing this order, vide operative part no.2, the Sub Divisional Officer also set aside the order dated 07/03/2011 passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioners, holding them entitled to 6.12 HR from the land of Gat No.156. The appeal filed by the present petitioners, came to be dismissed by the order dated 29/03/2017 (pg.38-d). Before the Sub Divisional Officer in one of the appeals, the respondent nos.3 and 4 were impleaded as parties/objectors. Against the aforesaid two orders, revision application came to be filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the petitioners, in which, the present respondent nos.3 and 4 were impleaded as party respondents. The learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by the judgment dated 20/06/2019 taking note of a decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.82/1968, in which the petitioners as well as the respondents were parties, 931 WP 6862 of 2019.odt

held that the respondent nos.3 and 4, had 5/6 th share and the petitioner had 1/6th share. He also noted that the judgment and decree in Regular Civil Suit No.82/1968 was confirmed in Regular Civil Appeal No.53/1994. The judgment in Regular Civil Appeal No.53/1994, dated 30/09/2002, in para 4, records, that the issue of tenancy was framed and was referred to the Tenancy Court, as a result of which, the Sub Divisional Officer, Jalgaon (Jamod) has decided the appeal on 31/07/1973 and held the respondents and the predecessor of the respondent nos.3 and 4 and those of the petitioners herein to be joint tenants of the aforesaid land. Against this decision of the Sub Divisional Officer dated 31/07/1973, a revision was preferred to the Revenue Tribunal, which came to be dismissed by the order dated 21/09/1982, against which, Writ Petition No.1419/1983 was filed before this Court, which came to be dismissed on 08/11/1989 and finally it was held that the respondent nos.3 and 4 were joint tenants to the extent of 5/6 th share and the predecessor of the petitioners was the joint tenant to the extent of 1/6th share.

3. Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 makes a statement that special leave petition against the decision in Writ Petition No.1419/1983 stands dismissed. It is thus contended by Mrs. Deshpande, learned counsel for the respondent nos.3 and 4 that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has merely recognized the position as already held by 931 WP 6862 of 2019.odt

this Court in Writ Petition No.1419/1983, and has not made any determination whatsoever.

4. Shri Saboo, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in any case, there ought to have been a determination of the purchase price, in respect of the share, to which the respondent nos.3 and 4 were held to be entitled and there being no application in this regard, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained, by which the revision has been partly allowed and it is held that the petitioners as well as respondent nos.3 and 4 are entitled to purchase the land of Gat No.156 in proportion to the share as allotted to them in Regular Civil Appeal No.53/1994 decided on 30/09/2002. The question which arises for consideration is whether in absence of an application made by the resplendent nos.3 and 4 under Section 41 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), Act 1958, whether the respondent nos.3 and 4 were entitled to the relief as granted by the learned Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, more so, in light of the language of Section 42 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), Act, requiring an enquiry regarding the satisfaction of the conditions, as mentioned therein.

5. In this regard, it would be appropriate, if the parties place on record the judgment of the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No.82/1968 in order to understand the 931 WP 6862 of 2019.odt

nature of the controversy, which was determined therein and its effect on the present petition.

6. List the matter on 31/01/2023.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Wadkar

Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA SUKHADEORAO WADKAR Signing Date:27.01.2023 19:45