1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2524 OF 1991 Hanumanrao Govindrao Patil } Age : 65 Years, Occ. Business, } R/o : Zodage, Tq. Malegaon, } Dist. Nasik. } ..... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal} Bombay. } 2. Atmaram Trimbak Deshmukh } (Deceased) – per L.Rs. } 3-(1)Hemant S/o Bhagwat Deshmukh Age : Major, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Patil Gadhi, Chopda, } Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. } 3-(2) Bhalchandra S/o Bhagwat } Deshmukh, Age : Major, } Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Patil Gadhi, Chopda, } Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. } 3-(3) Yamini Bhaskarrao Deshmukh } (Daughter of late Bhagwat } Deshmukh), Age : Major, } Occ. Household,R/o : } Chikhalovhan, Tq. Malegaon, } Dist. Nasik. } 3-(4) Sarojini W/o Bhagwat Deshmukh 2 Age : Major, Occ. Household, } R/o : Patil Gadhi, Chopda, } Tq. Chopda, Dist. Jalgaon. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. Rekha Ladda, Assistant Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr. V.T.Choudhari, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. Mr. S.S.Kulkarni,Advocate for respondent nos. 3(1) & 3(2). CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/06/2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.T.Choudhari, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents. 2. The facts as are necessary to decide the present lis can be culled out as under. The present petitioners are the original landlords and the present respondents 2 & 3 ( For short, ‘ the respondents ’ ) are the tenants. It is undisputed that the respondents and their predecessors were tenants on the land bearing G.No. 1133 admeasuring 80 R. situated at Chopada ( hereinafter referred as ‘ suit land ’ ). It is undisputed that on tillers’ day, the respondents and their predecessors 3 were tenants. The suit land is Inam land and was re-granted to the landlord in the year 1966. 3. On or about 9/6/1986, the respondents filed application before the Tahsildar to fix the purchase price. On or about 27/9/1986, the Tahsildar fixed the purchase price. The landlord preferred an Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who by his decision dated 28/5/1987 partly allowed the Appeal and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar for fresh adjudication. After remand, the Tahsildar vide his Judgment and Order dated 10/5/1988 was pleased to allow the application and fixed purchase price. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the landlord preferred Appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer, who by his Judgment and Order dated 29/12/1989, dismissed the same. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, preferred Revision before the Maharashtra revenue Tribunal, who by its Judgment and Order dated 31/1/1991 dismissed the same. Against the said Judgment and Order, the petitioner approached this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction. 4. Mr. Vinod Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the 7/12 extract contains the noting that the provisions of Section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act ( For short, ‘ Tenancy Act ’ ) are not applicable. According to him, as the said land was Patil Inam land, the provisions of Tenancy Act are excluded. 4 He further submitted that the suit land is in the municipal limits. The same is also reserved for college, as such according to him, on this count also, the provisions of Tenancy Act are not applicable. 5. As against this, Mr. V.T.Choudhari, the learned counsel for respondents submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate that the suit land was within the municipal limits on the tillers’ day. The authorities have concurrently arrived at conclusion that the said land was not within the municipal limits and there is positive finding to that effect. According to him, in view of Section 8 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patil (Abolition of Office ) Act, 1962 ( For short, ‘ M.R.P. Act ’ ) the applicability of the tenancy have been saved. 6. Perusal of the record would show that it is undisputed that on the tillers’ day, the respondents were the tenants. Simply because the land was Watan Inam land, the provisions of the Tenancy Act, particularly the provisions of Section 32–O and 32–G would not stand excluded. The re-grant to the landlord on payment of occupancy price to the State Govt., would only mean that the date of compulsory purchase of land stands statutorily postponed to the date of re-grant. It is not necessary for the tenant to exercise his right to purchase within the stipulated time after the order of re-grant as contemplated by Section 32–O of the Tenancy Act. There is no creation of fresh tenancy after re-grant. Reference can be made to the Judgment of this Court in 5 case of Shantabai W/o Dada Koli V/s Bhujgonda Adagonda Patil ( deceased ) & Oths. Reported in 2005 (1) ALL MR - 344. Even the Apex Court in case of Sadashiv Dada Patil V/s Purushottam Onkar Patil ( D) by L.Rs. reported in 2007 (1) Mh.L.J. - 149 has held that proviso to Section 8 of the M.R.P. Act does not take away the vested right of the tenant conferred by Section 32 of the Tenancy Act. As such, it is no gain saying that as the land was Patil Inam land, the provisions of the Tenancy Act would not be applicable. 7. The next contention of Mr. Vinod Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner that the land is within the municipal limits and as such the provisions of the Tenancy Act are not applicable, also can not be considered in view of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has also discussed the evidence led by the landlord and has observed that there is no evidence to show that this land G.No. 1133 of village Chopda was within the municipal limits on the tillers’ day. 8. The contention of Mr. Patil that land is reserved for college and as such provisions of Tenancy Act would not be applicable is not tenable in facts of present case. The notification regarding the land being reserved for college is of the year 1984 i.e. much after the tillers’ day and that would not affect the rights of the tenant which was vested and crystallized on the tillers’ day. It is a trite law that the right once 6 vested can not be divested. More over, as the Courts have concurrently arrived at the finding of fact regarding absence of any evidence of the land being within the municipal limits on the tillers’ day, it would not be open to interfere in the concurrent finding of facts in the supervisory jurisdiction. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to correct errors of jurisdiction and the like but not to upset pure findings of fact. 9. In the light of the above, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/WP 2524.91 ( J )