Dismissed

Gujabai B.Sul(D.H.)Pandurang B. Sul and Ors. v. Sham N. Badar and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jul 2012WP/1709/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging orders directing eviction of Gujabai Sul. The Court held that the petitioner failed to exhaust alternate remedies, faced severe delay, and found no merit in the claim that she was a deemed tenant under Section 32-G(6) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; Rule discharged; no order as to costs.

Gujabai B.Sul(D.H.)Pandurang B. Sul and Ors. Vs Sham N… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP1709_92.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1709 OF 1992

¶4

Smt. Gujabai Bhiva Sul, of Handalwadi,	)
Pargaon, Taluka – Daund since deceased by her heirs-	)
1. Mr. Pandurang Bhiva Sul since deceased by his heirs	)
a) Mr. Kashinath Pandurang Sul, age 45, Occupation: Agriculturist	) )
b) Mr. Shivaji Pandurang Sul,	)
age 36, Occupation: Agriculturist	)
c) Mr. Bapu Pandurang Sul,	)
age 30, Occupation: Agriculturist	)
d) Mr. Pirtu Pandurang Sul,	)
age 28, Occupation: Agriculturist	)
e) Smt. Gangubai Pandurang Sul, age 34, Occupation: Housewife	) )
f) Smt. Yashoda Pandurang Sul, age 70	) )
(Petitioner Nos.1a to 1e all residing at Kadgaon,	)
Taluka Daund, District Pune)	)
2. Mr. Kisan Bhival Sul	)
3. Mr. Laxman Bhiva Sul	)
4. Mr. Abu Bhiva Sul	)
(Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 r/o. Kadgaon, Naik-	)
Handalwadi, Post Kadgaon, Taluka Daund,	)
District Pune	)
Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

1) Shri Sham Narayan Bedar since deceased by )
his heir and LR )
1-A) Smt. Kalabai Sham Bedar )
Occupation : Household )
R/o. House No.1258, Chavani Gavalipura, ) Aurangabad. )
2) Shri Chandrakant Narayan Bedar )
R/o. House No.1258, Chavani Gavalipura, ) Aurangabad. )
3) Smt. Ramabai Dasharath Ghandate, since deceased )
by her heir and LR. Mr. Chandrakant N. Bedar )

¶7

1/15

¶8

WP1709_92.sxw

¶9

(who is already on record as Respondent No.2) 4) Smt. Yashodabai Madhukar Tambe r/o. H. No.101, Dhole Patil Chowk, Ulhasnagar, Tadiwala Road, Pune-1.	) ) ) )
Nos.1 to 4 acting through their Power of Attorney	)
Holder Shri Prakash Krishnarao Deshmukh, r/o. 129/1A/2 Parvati, Shandkar Colony,	) )
Near Dattawadi, Pune Respondents	)...

¶10

Ms S. M. Dandekar, Advocate for Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.1-A.

¶12

CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. Reserved on: 15^TH JUNE, 2012 Pronounced on: 03^RD JULY, 2012

¶13

JUDGMENT :

¶14

Heard Ms Dandekar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Mr. Deshpande, learned Counsel for respondent No.1-A at length.

¶15

By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have challenged (i) the judgment and order dated 28.09.1961 passed by Mamalatdar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal (for short 'ALT'), Daund in Tenancy Case No.32-G/Kedgaon/97/61 (exh.A); (ii) the order dated 08.09.1962 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case No.32/G/Kedgaon/97/61 (exh.C); (iii) the judgment and order dated 16.03.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Pune in Tenancy Appeal No.27 of 1967 (exh.D); (iv) the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case No.32G/67/61 (exh.F); (v) the judgment and order dated 20.07.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramathi Division, Baramati in Tenancy Appeal No.36/87 (exh.G) and (vi) the judgment and order dated 15.02.1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application (exh.H) and prayed

¶16

2/15

¶17

WP1709_92.sxw

¶18

for the restoration of (i) the judgment and order dated 19.01.1962 passed by the Additional Collector, Poona in Tenancy Appeal No.198/61 (exh.B) and (ii) the judgment and order dated 31.10.1967 passed by the Assistant Collector, Baramati Division, Baramati in Tenancy Application No.1/65 (exh.E). The facts and circumstances, giving rise to the filing of the present Petition, briefly stated are as under:

¶19

The dispute between the parties arises from the proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short 'Act') and is in respect of the land bearing original survey No.299 and presently Gat No.1172/1 admeasuring 8 H. 68 Ares situate at VillageKedgaon, Taluka-Daund, District-Pune (for short 'the suit land'). The suit land was granted to Limbabai for the meritorious services rendered by her husband Naik Govind Bedar in the first World War 1914-1915. The said Govind Bedar died leaving behind his widow Limbabai. It is the case of the petitioners that the said Limbabai inducted Gujabai Bhiva Sul as a tenant after obtaining requisite permission from the Collector. It is further alleged that on account of breach of conditions regarding lease to the tenant without permission of the Collector, the suit land was forfeited to the Government. The suit land and another Survey No.300 were granted to Narayan M. Bedar, brother of Govind, on a new tenure on payment of occupancy price of Rs.64.90/- as per the Revenue Department No.8129/51ETC dated 25.09.1952 below No.LND/SR/215/52 dated 12.10.1952 from the Prant Officer, Baramati Division. It is further alleged that the Circle Officer, Kedgaon took the possession of the land from the tenant purchaser and handed over to the village officer, Kedgaon on 03.12.1953.

¶20

The enquiry under Section 32-G of the Act was held in tenancy case No.32-G/Kedgaon/97/67 by the ALT, Daund. By the judgment and

¶21

3/15

¶22

WP1709_92.sxw

¶23

order dated 28.09.1961, the ALT came to the conclusion that the tenant purchaser Gujabai was unauthorizedly in occupation of the suit land. The ALT also came to the conclusion that since the grant, former landlord was kept out of possession of the suit land and the suit land belonged to the Government, Gujabai could not be deemed to be a lawful tenant of the suit land. The ALT, therefore, came to the conclusion that Gujabai was a trespasser on the suit land belonging to the Government and ordered closure of 32-G proceedings. Aggrieved by this order, Gujabai preferred tenancy appeal No.198/61 before the Additional Collector, Poona. By the judgment and order dated 19.01.1962, the Additional Collector, Poona allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT and remanded the case for deciding the issue under Section 70(b) and thereafter to hold proceedings under Section 32-G, if necessary. In view of the decision dated 19.01.1962, the ALT by order dated 08.09.1962 postponed the proceedings under Section 32-G till the application filed by Gujabai under Section 70(b) of the Act is finally decided.

¶24

Pursuant to the order dated 19.01.1962 passed by the Additional Collector, Poona, Gujabai filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Act being Tenancy Case No.77 of 1962. By the judgment and order dated 27.12.1964, the ALT came to the conclusion that Gujabai was not a tenant in the suit land but she was cultivating the suit land unauthorizedly. After perusing the record, the ALT held that from the 7 x 12 extract of the year 1954-1955, no wahiwat of Gujabai was shown in village form VII-X and that her name was only mentioned in column “Kul and Khand”. The ALT also took into account the statement of Gujabai that she had not paid rent for last ten years and that she had promised to produce papers of her tenancy, however, she did not produce the same. On these among other grounds, the ALT came to the

¶25

4/15

¶26

WP1709_92.sxw

¶27

conclusion that Gujabai was not a tenant but was cultivating the suit land unauthorizedly.

¶28

Aggrieved by this order, Gujabai preferred tenancy appeal No.27/67. The same was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Poona on 16.03.1967 on the ground that the appeal is time barred. It seems that after the dismissal of the appeal, Narayan M. Bedar filed an application under Section 84 of the Act for eviction of Gujabai from the suit land. By the judgment and order dated 31.10.1967, the Assistant Collector dismissed the application. In that order, the Assistant Collector recorded that in the proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act, the ALT had by order dated 27.12.1964 decided that Gujabai was a trespasser. However, in the crossexamination of Narayan M. Bedar, he had stated that he did not mind taking the rent from Gujabai as a tenant but the rent should be increased. The Assistant Collector, therefore, held that the application under Section 84 of the Act was not tenable and the landlord had a remedy to make application under Section 9 of the Act for the enhancement of the rent.

¶29

After the proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act were concluded on account of the decision dated 27.12.1964 of the ALT as also the decision dated 16.03.1967 of the Special Deputy Collector, the proceedings under Section 32-G, which were postponed as per the order dated 08.09.1962 were reopened. By the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977, ALT came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In paragraph 4 of that order, reference to the proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act was made. It was observed that the application under Section 70(b) of the Act was dismissed on 27.12.1964 by the Tahsildar, Daund who declared that

¶30

5/15

¶31

WP1709_92.sxw

¶32

Gujabai was not a legal tenant of the suit land and was a trespasser. The appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector on 16.03.1967. Under these circumstances, he came to the conclusion that there is no relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and accordingly, he dropped the proceedings under Section 32(G) of the Act.

¶33

The heirs and legal representatives of Narayan M. Bedar thereafter filed application under Section 84 of the Act for possession of the suit land from Gujabai. By the judgment and order dated 20.02.1989, Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati granted the application and directed that Gujabai should be evicted summarily. Aggrieved by this order, heirs and legal representatives of Gujabai preferred revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (for short 'MRT'), which revision was dismissed on 15.02.1991. As noted earlier, the petitioners have challenged the orders at exhs. A, C, D, F, G, H and prayed for restoration of the order at exhs. B and E.

¶34

In support of this petition, Ms Dandekar reiterated the submissions made before the Authorities below and strenuously contended that the suit land was granted to the deceased Naik Govind Bedar's widow Limbabai on 20.07.1920 as a token in recognition of the distinguished services of the Naik subject to the condition that the land would be held perpetually on the inalienable tenure which will not be sold, transferred, mortgaged or otherwise encumbered or leased without the permission of the Collector vide Exh.Nos.4-B and 4-C. During the lifetime of Limbabai, Gujabai was inducted as a tenant with the permission of the Collector.

¶35

Ms Dandekar further submitted that the suit land was Jangi Iman

¶36

6/15

¶37

WP1709_92.sxw

¶38

land, and on its abolition, it had been granted to the former landlord on new tenure and the conditions of the new tenure were inoperative under Section 32-G(6) of the Act, and therefore, it should have been held that Gujabai was the deemed purchaser of the suit land under Section 32-G of the Act on the tillers day. She further invited my attention to the observations made by the Assistant Collector in the order dated 31.10.1967. The said order was passed in an application made by Narayan M. Bedar under Section 84 of the Act for evicting Gujabai summarily from the suit land. In the cross-examination, Narayan stated that he did not mind taking the rent from Gujabai as a tenant but the rent should be increased. From the deposition and cross-examination, the Assistant Collector observed that the main grievance of Narayan was that Gujabai was paying less rent, and if that rent was increased, he would have no objection to the tenancy. Thus, she submitted that Narayan was more interested in enhancement of the rent rather than evicting Gujabai.

¶39

Ms Dandekar further submitted that in any case, after rejection of the application made by Narayan under Section 84 of the Act, on 31.10.1967, he was precluded from filing a fresh application under Section 84 of the Act for summary eviction of Gujabai. The earlier application made by Narayan was dismissed on merits, and therefore, the subsequent application was barred by the principles of res judicata. However, by the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer not only entertained the said application but allowed the same and ordered summary eviction of Gujabai. The said order was confirmed by the MRT on 15.02.1991 and the MRT committed the same error in holding that the subsequent application, made under Section 84 of the Act, was maintainable. She, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed by setting aside the

¶40

7/15

¶41

WP1709_92.sxw

¶42

impugned orders at exhibits A, C, D, F, G, H and by restoring the orders at exhibits B and E.

¶43

On the other hand, Mr. Deshpande supported the impugned orders. He submitted that insofar as the order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT (exh.A) is concerned, the petitioner had admittedly challenged the said order by filing appeal being tenancy appeal No.198 of 1961. By order dated 19.01.1962, the Additional Collector set aside the said order and remanded the case for deciding the issue of tenancy under Section 70(b) and thereafter to hold the proceedings under Section 32-G, if necessary. He, therefore, submitted that the challenge to the order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT (exh.A) does not survive. The petitioner has prayed for restoration of the order dated 19.01.1962 (exh.B) passed by the Additional Collector in tenancy appeal No.198 of 1961. The said order in fact has been acted upon and the proceedings under Section 70(b) were held. In those proceedings, Gujabai was found to be not a tenant, and in fact, was found in unauthorized occupation of the suit land. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were conducted, and even in that, Gujabai was held to be not a tenant and was found to be in unauthorized occupation of the suit land. Thus, the order dated 19.01.1962 was acted upon.

¶44

He further submitted that insofar as the challenge to the judgment and order dated 16.03.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Collector in tenancy appeal No.27 of 1967 (exh.D) is concerned, the said decision cannot be challenged without exhausting equally efficacious alternate remedy. In other words, the petitioner ought to have challenged the said decision by filing revision under Section 76 of the Act and the same cannot be questioned for the first time in this writ petition. Insofar the challenge to the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977 passed by the

¶45

8/15

¶46

WP1709_92.sxw

¶47

ALT in tenancy case No.32G/67/61 (exh.F) is concerned, he submitted that the same cannot be challenged for the first time in this petition. The petitioner ought to have challenged the said decision by filing appeal under Section 74. Apart from that, after decision in appeal under Section 74, a remedy of revision under Section 76 is available. In other words, without exhausting the equally efficacious alternate remedies, the petitioner cannot challenge the said decision. Apart from this, even the challenge to the decision dated 16.03.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Collector in tenancy appeal No.27 of 1967 (exh.D) and the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977 passed by the ALT in tenancy case No.32G/67/61 (exh.F) suffers from gross delay and laches. No cause, much less any sufficient cause, is made out for condoning the delay in challenging these orders.

¶48

Mr. Deshpande further submitted that the application made by Narayan Bedar under Section 84 was not dismissed on merits. The said application was premature in the sense that by order dated 19.01.1962 of the Additional Collector in tenancy appeal No.198 of 1961, Gujabai was directed to make application under Section 70(b) of the Act and the ALT was directed to decide the case under Section 70(b) and thereafter to hold proceedings under Section 32-G, if necessary. In view of this, by order dated 08.09.1962, the ALT directed that the inquiry under Section 32-G be postponed till the application under Section 70(b) is decided. Narayan made application under Section 84 of the Act after the conclusion of proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act. However, by that time, the proceedings under Section 32-G were not decided. After the decisions in the proceedings under Section 70(b) dated 27.12.1964 and 16.03.1967 in tenancy case No.77 of 1962 and tenancy appeal No.27 of 1967 respectively, the proceedings under Section 32-G were re-opened. By order dated 30.03.1977, the ALT dropped the

¶49

9/15

¶50

WP1709_92.sxw

¶51

proceedings under Section 32-G. The said decision was not challenged by the petitioner. After this decision, a fresh application under Section 84 of the Act was made, which was entertained by the authorities below, and therefore, no error is committed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the MRT while passing the impugned orders dated 20.07.1989 and 15.02.1991 respectively. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶52

Before I consider the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be material to note that the petitioners have challenged (i) the judgment and order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case No.32-G/Kedgaon/97/61 (exh.A); (ii) the order dated 08.09.1962 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case No.32/G/Kedgaon/97/61 (exh.C); (iii) the judgment and order dated 16.03.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Collector for Tenancy Appeals, Pune in Tenancy Appeal No.27 of 1967 (exh.D); and (iv) the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977 passed by the ALT in Tenancy Case No.32G/67/61 (exh.F). In the first place, against the judgment and order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT, the petitioner had admittedly filed appeal being tenancy appeal No.198 of 1961. By order dated 19.01.1962, the Additional Collector set aside the said order and remanded the case for deciding the issue of tenancy under Section 70(b), and thereafter to hold the proceedings under Section 32-G, if necessary. The challenge raised by the petitioners to the order dated 28.09.1961 passed by the ALT at exhibit-A, therefore, does not survive. The petitioner has also prayed for restoration of the order dated 19.01.1962 (exh.B) passed by the Additional Collector in tenancy appeal No.198 of 1961. Pursuant to that order, the proceedings under Section 70(b) were held. I am, therefore, of the opinion that even the challenge raised to the said order does not survive.

¶53

10/15

¶54

WP1709_92.sxw

¶55

The petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 16.03.1967 passed by the Special Deputy Collector in tenancy appeal No.27 of 1961 (exh.D). Against the said decision, the petitioner has admittedly not filed revision under Section 76 of the Act. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot challenge the said order for the first time in this writ petition. Apart from that, the petition is instituted in the year 1992 challenging the order dated 16.03.1967. The delay in challenging the said order is not at all explained in this petition. The petitioner has also challenged the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977 passed by the ALT (exh.F). The petitioner did not challenge the said order by filing appeal under Section 74, and thereafter by filing revision under Section 76 of the Act. Thus, the petitioner has challenged these orders without exhausting the equally efficacious alternate remedies. That apart, the petitioner has challenged these orders by filing writ petition in the year 1992, without explaining the delay. I, therefore, find substance in the contentions raised by Mr. Deshpande that the petitioner's challenge to the orders at Exhs.A, C and D suffers from gross delay and laches. Insofar prayer made by the petitioner for restoration of the order dated 19.01.1962 (exh.B) is concerned, I find substance in the submissions of Mr. Deshpande that the said order having been acted upon, the said prayer cannot be granted. Equally, the prayer made by the petitioner for restoring the order dated 31.10.1967 (exh.E) also cannot be granted and the same suffers from gross delay and laches.

¶56

Insofar as the merits are concerned, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 20.07.1989 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, Baramati in Tenancy Appeal No.36/87 (exh.G) and the judgment and order dated 15.02.1991 passed by the learned Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune-1 in Revision Application (exh.H). Ms Dandekar submitted that the respondent No.1

¶57

11/15

¶58

WP1709_92.sxw

¶59

had earlier made application under Section 84 for evicting Gujabai. By judgment and order dated 31.10.1967, the said application was dismissed by the learned Assistant Collector. She, therefore, submitted that the subsequent application under Section 84 made by respondent No.1 is not maintainable. The said application is barred by the principles of res judicata . I do not find any substance in this submission. As noted above, the earlier application made under Section 84 was dismissed on 31.10.1967. By this time, proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act were concluded. However, the proceedings under Section 32-G were pending. The said application was clearly premature as by order dated 19.01.1962 in Tenancy Appeal No.198 of 1961, the Additional Collector directed Gujabai to make an application under section 70(b) of the Act and the ALT was directed to decide the said application, and thereafter to hold proceedings under Section 32-G, if necessary. In view of that order, the ALT postponed the enquiry under Section 32-G by order dated 08.09.1962 till the application under Section 70(b) is decided. After the conclusion of the proceedings under Section 70(b), the proceedings under Section 32-G were reopened and by judgment and order dated 30.03.1977, the ALT dropped the proceedings under Section 32-G. The said decision was, however not challenged by the petitioner by filing appeal and thereafter revision. After this decision, a fresh application under Section 84 was made, which was rightly entertained by the Authorities. I, therefore, find substance in the submissions made by Mr. Deshpande that so long as the proceedings under Section 70(b) and proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act were not concluded, the first application made by respondent No.1 under Section 84 of the Act was premature. This aspect is considered by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer while deciding the application under Section 84 on 20.02.1989. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has confirmed the finding about the maintainability of the subsequent application under Section 84 of the

¶60

12/15

¶61

WP1709_92.sxw

¶62

Act. I do not find that the Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have committed any error in entertaining and deciding the said application.

¶63

As noted earlier, the application made by Gujabai under Section 70(b) of the Act was decided by ALT on 27.12.1964. The ALT came to the conclusion that Gujabai was not a tenant but was cultivating the suit land unauthorizedly. After perusing the record, the ALT held that from 7 X 12 extract of the year 1954-1955, no wahiwat of Gujabai was shown in village form VII-X and that her name was only mentioned in column “Kul and Khand”. The ALT also took into account the statement of Gujabai that she had not paid rent for last ten years and though she had promised to produce papers of her tenancy, she did not produce the same. Aggrieved by this order, Gujabai preferred tenancy appeal No.27/1967 and the same was dismissed by the Special Deputy Collector on 16.03.1967. The said order was however not challenged by Gujabai by adopting appropriate proceedings and the same is sought to be challenged in the present petition. Thus, in the proceedings under Section 70(b), the Authorities below held that Gujabai was a trespasser and not a tenant.

¶64

After conclusion of proceedings under Section 70(b) of the Act, the proceedings under Section 32-G, which were postponed pursuant to the order dated 08.09.1962, were reopened. By the judgment and order dated 30.03.1977, the ALT held that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, and accordingly, the ALT dropped the proceedings under Section 32-G of the Act. The said order was, however, not challenged by filing appeal under Section 74, and thereafter revision under Section 76 of the Act. The said order is sought to be challenged in this petition. Thus, on merits also, the claim of

¶65

13/15

¶66

WP1709_92.sxw

¶67

Gujabai was turned down in two different proceedings, one under Section 70(b) and another under Section 32-G of the Act. Even on this count, I do not find that Sub-Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal have committed any error in passing the impugned orders.

¶68

Ms Dandekar further submitted that the suit land was Jangi Iman land, and on its abolition, it had been re-granted to the former landlord on the new tenure and the conditions of new tenure were inoperative under Section 32-G(6) of the Act, and therefore, it should have been held that the said Gujabai was a deemed purchaser of the suit land under Section 32-G of the Act on the tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957. Section 32G(6) provides that, if any land, which, by or under the provisions of any of the Land Tenures Abolition Acts referred to in Schedule-III to the Act, is re-granted to the holder thereof on condition that it was not transferable, such condition shall not be deemed to affect the right of any person holding such land in lease created before the re-grant and such person shall as a tenant be deemed to have purchased the land under this Section, as if the condition that it was not transferable was not the condition of re-grant. A list of Land Tenures Abolition Acts is set out in Schedule-III.

¶69

I have perused the original Sanad dated 20.07.1920 issued to Limbabai, widow of Naik Govind Bedar. The said Sanad was presented to her as a token of recognition of the distinguished service of Naik Govind Bedar during the great war 1914-1919. In other words, the said Sanad was not granted under any of the Land Tenures Abolition Act set out in Schedule-III of the Act. I, therefore, find that Section 32-G(6) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of this Court in the case of

¶70

14/15

¶71

WP1709_92.sxw

¶72

Krishna Tatya Chavan Vs. Shankar Yamaji Kadam , AIR 1983 Bombay 52 After quoting Section 32-G(6), it was observed in paragraph 8 as under:

¶73

“Now, if one looks at Schedule III of the Bombay Tenancy Act, it is clear that the Watans Abolition Act, 1958 is not mentioned in this Schedule III. This non-inclusion in Schedule III, in my opinion, takes away the application of the provisions of Section 32-G(6) of the Bombay Tenancy Act. S.32-G(6) would come into operation in respect of such tenures which are abolished and referred to in Schedule III of the Bombay Tenancy Act. Since Watans Abolition Act, 1958 is not referred to in this Schedule III, the provisions of S.32-G(6) will have no application to the present proceedings.”

¶74

In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find that the Authorities below have committed any error of law apparent on the face of the record. It also cannot be said that the impugned orders are perverse or that the said orders are contrary to the material on record. In view thereof, I find no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner. The petition being devoid of substance deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

¶75

Rule is discharged. In the circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶76

(R. G. KETKAR, J.)

¶77

Minal Parab

¶78

15/15

Gujabai B.Sul(D.H.)Pandurang B. Sul and Ors. v. Sham N. Badar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gujabai B.Sul(D.H.)Pandurang B. Sul and Ors. v. Sham N. Badar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajit Shankar Jadhav Vs Gopinath Patil Parsik Janta Sah. Bank, Thane and Ors.

Amir Aga Vs Shaikh Abdulla Shaikh Yunus (Decd.)by Lrs.- Abdulla Rehman Abdulla Shaikh and Ors.

Shri. Sadashiv Mhalappa Vhanmane Vs Shri. Baban Shivaji Bhosale and Ors.

Bahujan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Islampur, through Secretary, Suryakant Tatoba Mali Vs Shri. S. T. Mali and Ors.

Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd., Vs Medha Yashwant Satoskar

Shri.Duryodhan Narayan Patil Vs Shri. Subhash Shripat Kot and Ors.