Babu Vithu Gaikwad [Dead] By Lrs vs Chintaman Sadashiv & Ors

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals in short may be stated as follows:

3. Agriculture land ( for short "the aforesaid land") bearing Survey No.175/1 admeasuring 2 acres and 11 gunthas situated at Village Biwadi, Tal Purandhar, District Pune was owned by Sadashiv Purandhare, father of the respondent No.1 Chintaman Sadashiv. Babu Vithu Gaikwad whose heirs and legal representatives are the appellants in this Court was the original tenant in respect of the aforesaid land. A partition of the aforesaid land was affected by the deceased father of the respondents by which the disputed land was allotted to him. On the tillers day, i.e., 1st April, 1957 the respondent No.1 was a minor. He attained majority on 6th October, 1960. In compliance with Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), the respondent No.1 issued notice to Babu Vithu Gaikwad [since deceased] for termination of his tenancy in respect of the aforesaid land. This termination notice was issued within one year of attaining the age of majority. The landlord- respondent No.1 had failed to take out proceedings under Section 29 of the Act until he filed an application on 27th March, 1962. Since the application under Section 29 of the Act was time barred, the proceedings taken out by the landlord-respondent No.1 were withdrawn on 5th September, 1964. After one year of such withdrawal, Babu Vithu Gaikwad -the tenant- had filed an application under Section 32F read with Section 32G of the Act on 2nd August, 1965. In these proceedings, on 6th October, 1967, a statement of the tenant was recorded that he was willing to purchase the disputed land. The additional Tehsildar rejected the application of the tenant by his order dated 28th January, 1973. The tenant filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Additional Tehsildar for fresh disposal. After a month by his order dated 31st August, 1978, the Additional Tehsildar held that under Section 32F the right of the tenant to purchase the aforesaid land was forfeited and, hence, directed that proceedings could be initiated under Section 32P of the Act. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Additional Collector, Pune and by an order dated 27th October, 1980 he allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to Additional Tehsildar for holding an enquiry under Section 32G to 32R of the Act for fixing the price for purchase in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the landlord-respondent No.1 filed a revision petition before the MRT, Pune which was allowed by the tribunal by an order dated 30th August, 1983 and against this order the tenants had filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Bombay, which was dismissed by the impugned order in respect of which special leave petition was filed and leave was granted.

10. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Revisional Authority, the appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court which came to be registered as Writ Petition No.139 of 1984 and by the impugned order the High Court dismissed the writ petition and held that there was no error of jurisdiction nor was there any error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly the order passed by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the MRT was perfectly valid and did not warrant any interference. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the High Court, the appellants preferred special leave petition in this court.

20. On examining the above mentioned case, we are of the opinion that the case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale pertains to determination of the question whether Janardhan was a deemed purchaser or not. However, in the case before us, the rights of the minor are not disputed. The question of the tenants becoming a deemed purchaser does not arise in the present case as the land was transferred in the name of the minor before the tiller's day.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, the answers to the question raised as noted herein earlier are in the negative. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal upholding the decision of the High Court of Bombay and the MRT, with no orders as to costs.