1 wp4485-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4485 OF 2010 Punjagir Lalgir Gosavi ..Petitioner versus Walu Dharma Koli & Ors ..Respondents Mr.V.D.Bhavsar for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 20th & 22nd July 2011. P.C.: . This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order passed by the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal dated 1st December 2009 in Tenancy Revision No.1/P/2004 and the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer, Niphad and Tenancy Appeal No.12 of 2003 dated 8th December 2003. 2 It is contended by Mr.Bhavsar appearing on behalf of 2 wp4485-10.doc the petitioner that way back in 1961 and to be precise on 13th July 1961 in Civil Revision Application No.1338 of 1960, this Court issued a direction and the Mamlatdar was to decide two issues viz., whether the original plaintiff viz., Lalgir Shamgir Gosavi proves that he would be entitled to possession of the suit land because of the failure of the tenant Dharma Goma Koli to pay rent which has necessitated the Devesthan to borrow moneys for its expenses and suit would be barred by the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. 3 It is contended by Mr.Bhavsar that these directions have been ignored. Instead of conducting inquiry in terms of the directions, the Sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, so also the relevant authorities clearly misdirected themselves in law. They have rendered erroneous conclusions and when it has been established that the tenant was defaulter. He defautled in payment of rent. The land was belonged to Devasthan and ranked in Category III as Inam land. In these circumstances, both the orders suffer from error 3 wp4485-10.doc apparent on the face of the record and perverse and should be set aside. 4 It is not possible to accept these contentions because the Sub Divisional Officer has clearly come to a conclusion that the Tenancy Avval Karkun erred in law in passing order dated 6th June 2003. The tenant had become deemed purchaser on the tiller’s day. The Sub Divisional Officer on going through the entire record, has found that the Trust has been registered on 16th May 1958. The rights existed as on the tiller’s day viz., 1st April 1957 and on that date, the Devesthan Trust which is stated to be a registered public charitable Trust was not in existence. It is clear that by virtue of the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, the tenant having become deemed purchaser, he could not have been evicted except only in accordance therewith. The only relevant inquiry was whether the tenant was a defaulter prior to the tiller’s day or not, whether he has defaulted in payment of rent subsequently and particularly in 1982, was not within the 4 wp4485-10.doc scope of the inquiry in terms of the order of this Court. 5 This finding of the Sub Divisional Officer has been confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. It has come to the conclusion that if the Trust was claiming the land, then, it could have claimed the same only in terms of the exemption granted in its favour and as available under section 88(b) of the Tenancy Act. That certificate has not been obtained. It has been clarified by both viz., Sub Divisional Officer and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that Dharma Goma was a tenant on the tiller’s day. After his demise, the successors in interest stepped in. If the land was not covered by the Tenancy Act and that was the case set out at the instance of the Trust, surely what was expected was the registration of the Trust and these facts are in the knowledge of the Trust. If the Trust itself came into existence subsequently and issue was of default prior to the tiller’s day and the position in law with reference to the tiller’s day, is alone to be considered, then, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was not in error in dismissing the 5 wp4485-10.doc Revision Application. The findings recorded are in consonance with the material placed before it. There was no error apparent or perversity in the order of the Sub Divisional Officer requiring the interference in revisional jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)