- 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 3386 OF 2010 Vishnu Gopal Ukidave .. Petitioner Vs. Babu Krishna Dhuri (through L.Rs.) & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar, for the Petitioner. CORAM : R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2010. P.C. : 1. This petition by an erstwhile tenant in respect of agricultural land bearing Revised survey No. 65/2, situated at village Math taluka Vengurla, District Sindhudurga, questions the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing petitioner’s revision, on the ground that the petitioner had not made out the case that he was tenant in respect of the entire field. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since name of one Narayan Ganesh Ukidave, the ancestor of the petitioner, through whom petitioner claims tenancy, appeared in the 7-12 extract in - 2 - the cultivation column in respect of the field for the year 1956-57 onwards, the petitioner’s predecessor must be held to have been in possession of the said land, on the “Tillers day” and therefore, irrespective of whether he claimed transfer of ownership or not, he had become deemed purchaser. Therefore, there was no question of the Talsildar, initiating any proceedings under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for confirming the transfer in favour of Krishna Babu Dhuri, through whom respondent No.1 claims. (Kashibai, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Sub- Divisional Officer, was Krishna’s daughter in law and respondent No.1 is her descendant). Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the heirs of the original landlord. Respondent No.4 seems to be an heir of the predecessor of petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s claim is based on 7-12 extract of revised Survey No. 65/2 of the year 1956-1957 in which name of Narayan Ganesh Ukidave appears in the cultivation column. The area shown is 5 Acres, 26 Guntha. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal started proceeding which, culminated by the order dated 16-6-1962, whereby in respect of only 2 Acres, 32 Gunthas land out of Survey No. 65/2, said Dhuri was held to be the tenant, entitled to purchase the land. This order was - 3 - challenged by the petitioner before the Sub-Divisional Officer in appeal and the said appeal came to be decided by an order dated 10th May 1982 whereby the Sub-Divisional Officer remanded the matter for a re-trial. Accordingly, upon re-trial by an order dated 31st January 1994, the Agricultural Lands Tribunal held that transfer of land to Krishna Babu Dhuri under section 32-G of the Act, by the order 16-6-1962 was proper. This order was again challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer, who by his judgment dated 8th March 2000 upheld the order in favour of Dhuri, which was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal by its judgment dated 30th October 2009. 4. The Tribunal held that in fact Dhuri was in possession of the property as tenant, as had been stated before the Revenue Authorities by one Bhaskar Atmaram Pathak. Dhuri was inducted as tenant in the year 1954 and a rent receipt for that year was also produced. Thus, 2 Acres, 32 Gunthas out of said survey number remained with Dhuris while the remaining half was in possession of petitioner. It was also pointed out that a civil dispute in respect of the properties have been filed in which a settlement took place. It is contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was not a party to this settlement. However, decree came to be passed against the petitioner - 4 - also. The decree was challenged upto the High Court, but the petitioner withdrew Second Appeal No.537 of 2007. While disposing of the said Second Appeal, the petitioner secured direction that the revision pending before the Revenue Tribunal may be decided on merits and this is how the Revision came to be decided by the Tribunal. 5. In the face of the fact that Dhuris were in possession of the land as tenants as per the statement of the original landlord and also rent receipt of the year 1954, it would not be open to the petitioner to claim that petitioner was in possession of the entire land to the exclusion of Dhuris on the Tillers day. Therefore, the question is not whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard when the proceedings under S. 32-G of the Act for transfer of land to Dhuris were started, since they were in respect of a different piece of land. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision in the case of Dadhu Bhagoji Patil (through Lrs & Ors.) Vs. Ramakant Daddatraya Deshpande & Ors. [1998(1) Mh.L.J.715] wherein this Court held that even if tenant was dispossessed by orders of Court of competent jurisdiction, that has to be ignored, if the tenant was found to be in possession on 1-4-1957 i.e. tillers day. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on another decision in the case of – Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. Vs. - 5 - Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Anrs. [(1983) 3 Supreme Court Cases 437] wherein it was held that once the tenant becomes deemed purchaser, neither the landlord, nor anyone claiming through him, would have right of ownership. 6. The question here is not whether the petitioner could be disturbed by any one else, but whether the petitioner was in possession of the entire land, to the exclusion of Dhuris. On facts, all the three Courts below concurrently have held Dhuris to be in possession of 2 acres, 32 Gunthas of land, and so was the petitioner in respect of remaining 2 Acres 32 Guntha. It cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Courts below on facts are erroneous or call for the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- [R. C. CHAVAN, J.]