Writ Petition No. 3975 of 1991. Case: Vinayak Ratnagiri Gosavi and Tryambak Shivram Gosavi Vs State of Maharashtra. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 3975 of 1991 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: V.R. Dhorde, Adv. h/f R.N. Dhorde and For Respondent: V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. |
| Judges | S.S. Shinde, J. |
| Issue | Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 63, 64, 64(A), 84(C) (3); Bombay Co-operative Society Act, 1925 |
| Citation | 2011 (1) AllMR 572, 2011 (1) BomCR 564, 2011 (2) MahLJ 740 |
| Judgement Date | December 13, 2010 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
S.S. Shinde, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
-
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 30th September, 1986 by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri in Tenancy case No. 17 of 1986 and Judgment and order dated 6th July, 1987 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub Division, Rahuri in Appeal No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 and order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune on 7th June, 1991 in Case No. MRT.AH.X.-7/87(Tnc.B.286/87), Pune. The back ground facts for filing this Writ Petition as disclosed in the Writ Petition are as under:-
The petitioners herein are the original opponents in Tenancy Case No. 17 of 1986, in a a suomoto enquiry initiated by the Tahasildar. It is the case of the petitioners that the land Survey No. 65/1 was purchased by the petitioner No. 2 on 18th December, 1984 to the extent of 4 R of village Chinch Vihire,Tq. Rahuri. The said land was purchased for the consideration of Rs.3,000/- by registered sale-deed and mutation entry was effected on 26th February, 1985. The said entry was thereafter certified by Awalkarkun on 5th April, 1985 in the name of petitioner No. 2. The petitioner No. 2 made an application to the Tahasildar, for seeking permission for non agricultural use.
The petitioner No. 2 sold the said land to the petitioner No. 1 in his capacity as a Chief Promoter of the proposed Rangnath Swami Sahakari Griha Nirman Sanstha, Chinch Vihire, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar on 19th April, 1985, for the consideration of Rs.5,000/-. In the suo-moto enquiry the matter was referred to the Collector and issue was raised whether the sale of land in favour of the petitioner No. 2 initially is valid as the petitioner is not agriculturist. The case was initiated against the petitioner No. 2 bearing Tenancy Case No. 16 of 1986 and simultaneously another case was initiated against the petitioner No. 1 bearing Tenancy case No. 17 of 1986.
It was held that since the petitioner No. 2 who originally purchased the land is not an agriculturist, therefore, sale in favour of the petitioner NO. 2 dated 18th December, 1984 was illegal and, therefore, land should be restored to the Government. The petitioners stated that on the basis of the same proceedings, an enquiry was carried against the petitioner No. 1 also and in the said enquiry it has been held that the petitioner No. 2 is also a non-agriculturist and, therefore, the sale of the land by the petitioner No. 2 in favour of petitioner No. 1 is illegal. It has been held by the Tenancy Awalkarkun, Rahuri dated 30th September, 1986 that since the petitioner No. 1 is not an agriculturist, the land should be vested with the Govrnment in view of the provisions of Section 84(C) (3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (here-in-after referred as "said Act").
-
The petitioners being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred an appeal bearing No. TNC/Appeal/11/86 before the Sub Divisional Officer, Rahuri Sub Division. The appellate authority has held that though the uncle of the petitioner No. 1 was agriculturist he was not an agriculturist on the date when the petitioner No. 1 has purchased the said land. It has been further held that the evidence is not produced on record to show that the petitioner No. 1 is the member of the joint family. It has been further held that the land has been purchased, on behalf of the co-operative Society and the sale has taken place on 19th April, 1985 and the society has been registered on 30th December, 1985. Therefore, on the day when the land was purchased the society was not registered and, therefore, order passed by the Tenancy Awalkarkun was confirmed by the appellate authority and the appeal was dismissed by the Judgment and Order dated 6th July, 1987.
The petitioners being aggrieved by the said Judgment and order preferred a revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming the judgment and order passed by both the authorities below held that the uncle of the petitioner was holding land...
To continue reading
Request your trial