1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO.190 OF 2011. IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1180 OF 2011. Vitthal S/o Baba Dudhe, Pusad District Yavatmal. . Vrs. Shivajirao S/o Vitthal Dongre and others. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Shri. S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for appellant.) Shri S. J. Khandalkar, Advocate for respondent No. 1. ) CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 15th July, 2011. Judgment of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No 1180 of 2011 delivered on 23rd. March, 2011 is questioned before this Court. Contention is that the revision filed by the respondents before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on 05.04.1965 stood abated because of inclusion of tenanted land within a limits of Municipal Council with effect from 27.06.1963. It is further contended that, in any case, when Section 49-A-(1), Provisio of 2 Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), Act, expressly contemplate final adjudication of the application and as yet the adjudication has not attained finality. After 27.06.1963 or then even during pendency of revision filed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, the appellant was / is entitled to point out that because of subsequent developments he is entitled to demand the 7 acres of land to which the respondent/ tenant was found entitled, by the order of Sub-Divisional Officer, dated 20th April, 1963. It is contended that, taking of possession of 12 acres of land to which present appellant is found entitled by said order on 09.05.1963 by itself cannot tantamount to final adjudication of the controversy. Shri. Khapre, learned Counsel holding for Shri. Khandalkar, points out that the contention about abatement of revisions was not raised before the learned Single Judge. He further states that, by order dated 20.04.1963 passed under Section 49-A of Act r/w Rule 38, the present respondent is entitled to 7 3 acres of land and remaining 12 acres was restored to the present appellant. In the Revision Application Nos. 1786 of 1963 and 1787 of 1963, the subject matter was only the restoration of 12 acres portion to the present appellant and hence, the restoration or entitlement to 7 acres portion of the present respondent had attained finality. He further contends that, in view of this position the respondent became entitled to that 7 acres portion from 01st April, 1963 and therefore, subsequent event of land coming within the Municipal limits is not relevant. We have perused relevant papers and also provisions of law. It is not in dispute that, the area in which total 19 acres of land is situated came within the Municipal limits for the first time, on 27/06/1963. The petitioner (present appellant) had filed application for resumption of land for bonafide cultivation on 27/07/1961 and that application was being considered in Appeal pending before the Sub- Divisional Officer, Pusad. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, passed order on 20th April,1963 and found the 4 appellant entitled to possession of 12 acres of land and present respondents entitled to balance 7 acres and 4 gunthas of land. This order was passed on 20th April, 1963 and accordingly the present appellant took possession of 12 acres of land from the respondents on 09.05.1963. On that day the land was not within the Municipal limits. Perusal of Section 49-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), Act shows the intention of legislature, to statutorily transfer the title to tenant from 01st. April, 1963. However, that transfer is postponed if proceedings like in present matters, are pending as per proviso thereto. The title can be derived only after such proceedings are finally decided. The proviso expressly states, where landlord has made such an application for possession, the tenant on the date on which the application is finally decided is deemed to be full owner of the land, which he is entitled to retain in his possession after such decision. Here first order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pusad, is dated 5 20th April, 1963 and in so far as the entitlement of tenant to 7 acres is concerned, there is no other order except this order, dated 20th April, 1963. The tenant then filed revisions, challenging the part of order by which the appellant was found entitled to possession of 12 acres of land. Therefore, any adjudication in the said revisions could not have eclipsed or affected the entitlement of tenant to 7 acres of land. The success threin could have at the most deprived the present appellant of his 12 acres. It is, therefore, obvious that, the interpretation about finality as sought to be canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is misconceived. Division of lands is contemplated by said proviso itself as it expressly envisages full ownership only in relation to land to which tenant is found entitled. It is, therefore, obvious that, he need not be found entitled to retain entire land of 19 acres. Respondent/ tenant’s entitlement to 7 acres attained finality on 20.04.1963 itself in present facts. The controversy has been, therefore, rightly 6 looked into by the learned Single Judge. The proviso under Section 49-A of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region), Act , is for compulsory and statutory transfer of ownership. Here that transfer was over on 20th April, 1963 itself, in so far as 7 acres of land is concerned. Even after that adjudication, the possession of 12 acres of land to which appellant is found entitled was delivered to the appellant on 09.05.1963. The lands came in Municipal limits thereafter i.e. on 27.06.1963. It is, therefore, obvious that, this subsequent event cannot take away the title which had already vested in the present respondent on 20th April, 1963. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal and accordingly, it is rejected. No costs. At this stage, Shri Deshpande, learned Counsel, seeks continuation of interim order passed on 30th June, 2011 for period of 6 weeks. Shri Khapre, learned Counsel is opposing the request. However, 7 looking to the fact that the dispute is going on since long, we extend that understanding for a further period of 6 weeks. It shall cease to operate automatically thereafter. Certified copy is expedited. JUDGE JUDGE Deshmukh.