1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3826 OF 1991 Keshav Gangaram Jadhav Deceased­through heirs­ (A) Vasant Keshav Jadhav and others .. Petitioners Vs. Pandu Ranu Shingan Deceased through Heirs­ 1. Hanumant Pandu Singan and others .. Respondents Mr. R. A. Thorat for the petitioners Mr. P. B. Shah for the respondents CORAM: SHRI R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 8 th FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C. 1. One Pandu Ranu Shingan claimed to be the deemed purchaser of the land bearing survey No. 714/1A and 714/1B ( for shosrt said lands) situate at village Karad, more particularly set out in the order dated 5 th October, 1981 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, being a protected tenant in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). The proceedings based on 2 such claim of protected tenant came to be conducted by the Additional Tahsildar, Agricultural Land Tribunal No.1 and the said Additional Tahsildar, by his order dated 5 th October, 1981 declared said Pandurang as a person entitled to purchase the land in question and accordingly the payment is made by said Pandurang. The Landlord filed proceedings before the Sub­ Divisional Officer, Satara Subdivision, being proceedings No. TNC/A/40/1982, against the order dated 5 th October, 1981. It is noticed that said Pandurng died and therefore before the sub divisional officer, heirs of Pandurng were brought on record. Said heirs contested the said proceedings. The Sub­divisional officer, by order dated 17 th July, 1985 came to the conclusion that the matter is required to be remanded to the lower Court and accordingly he passed an order directing Additional Tahsildar to conduct fresh enquiry and disposal according to law. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated order dated 17 th April, 1985 the tenants i.e. Hanumant Pandu Shingan and others filed revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal being No. MRT­NS­X­8/85 (TNC318/85). 3. Learned Advocate Shri Shah informed this Court that 3 during the pendancy of the proceeding before the Sub­divsional officer, Satara the original landlord Keshav Gangaram Jadhav expired, however through oversight his heirs were not brought on record and this how the order passed by the Sub­ divisional officer indicates the name of the appellant as Keshav Gangaram Jadhav. He further informed that when the tenants filed the revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the heirs of the original landlord were impleaded as party respondents. 4. Learned Member of the the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, by his judgment and order dated 28 th October, 1987 allowed the revision application and set aside the order passed by the Sub­divisonal officer and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and thereby declared Pandu­ original tenants as deemed purchaser. It is this order dated 28 th October, 1987 is challenged by the landlords who are the petitioners before this Court. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Thorat appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to the notification issued by the Bombay Government dated 2 nd January, 1957. He read the text of the said notification which was produced before this Court for the first time. It 4 was not produced in the earlier proceedings. He submitted that as a result of notification dated 2 nd January, 1957 said lands were brought within the limits of Municipal Borough Karad. He, by taking benefit of this notification dated 2 nd January, 1957 as also the provisions of Section 43 C of the said Act, submitted that on account of provisions of Section 43 C of the said Act the land having now fallen within the limits of Karad Municipal Borough, the provisions of the said Act so as to declare the respondent as deemed purchaser cannot be made applicable and, therefore, the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar is patently erroneous. 6. I have heard learned Advocate on both the sides. Learned Advocate Shri Thorat appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew my attention to the to the text of the order dated 5 th October, 1981 passed by the Additional Tahsildar, where one finds reference to the application of the provisions of the Bombay Town Planning Act 1954 to the said lands and the related aspects thereof. I have considered the submissions and I am inclined to observe that it was open for the petitioner to raise the point as regards issuance of notification dated 2 nd January, 1957 and application of provisions of Section 43C of the said Act, before the Additional Tahsildar at the 5 relevant time as the said could have constituted a substantive defence to the application filed by the original tenant. 7. I am not of the view that use of the provisions of Bombay Town planning Act 1954 was improper and not relevant. It was the the case of the landlord that the provisions of Section 43C were directly applicable to the land in question, it was necessary for the landlord to produce notification dated 2 nd January, 1957 so as to constitute defence. The notification dated 2 nd January, 1957 was not referred to before Additional Tahsildar as also Sub­Divisional Officer. The Sub­divisional officer came to the conclusion that the remand is necessary because the proper opportunity was not given to the Kashibai, wife of the original landlord. Undoubtedly the point as regards application of provisions of Section 43­C of the said Act was not raised before Courts below in a substantive manner. 8. Before this Court it was sought to be contended by the learned Advocate Mr. Thorat that this Court can look into the notification dated 2 nd January, 1952 and hold in favour of the petitioner that the respondents­tenants are not entitled to the benefits of the provisions of the said Act, so far as the concept of the deemed 6 purchaser. I am not inclined to accept this submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner. If it was the stand of the petitioners that the said lands came within the limits of Karad Municipal Borough vide notification dated 2 nd January, 1957, the landlords­ petitioners were required to bring this fact to the notice of the concerned authorities at the first available opportunity. Nothing has been done in that behalf. It will not be proper for this Court now to take the said notification on record and accept the contention of the petitioner that the said notification is applicable to the said lands and reopen the matter. It is pertinent to note that the notification merely describes the boundaries of the various land which would fall within Karad Municipal Borough. Reading of the said notification by itself does not suggest that the said lands have fallen within the limit of Karad Municipal Borough. A certificate purported to have been issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Nagar Parasad, Karad dated 30 th July, 1987 was relied upon before this Court by the landlord to show that the said lands have fallen within the limit of Karad Municipal Borough on account of Notification dated 2 nd January, 1957. It would be unsafe to rely upon such a certificate. In the result, it would be difficult to accept the stand of the petitioners landlord that the lands in question have fallen within the limits of Karad Municipal Borough with effect 7 form 2 nd January, 1957. If this be so, there is no need to upset the findings recorded by the concerned authorities and in particular, the Additional Tahsildar, Karad. There is no need to interfere with the decision arrived at by the said authority which is in turn confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by its judgement dated 28th October, 1987. 9. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. If there is any stay to the operation of the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, the said stay shall be continued till 31 st March, 2010. ( R. Y. GANOO, J. ) jpc/­